Interference No. 103,208
Hoshino et al. v. Tanaka
defocus, if it is even assumed that there is any expectation
at all.
Also, because count 1 specifically mentions the amount of
defocus as a factor and not the amount of defocus squared,
cubed, or raised to any other higher order, there is at least
some motivation for one with ordinary skill in the art to
include a first order term of the defocus amount in the
formula. Note that
a first order term is almost precisely what the count
literally says. It takes additional cognitive figuring or at
least another mental step to realize that the count is not
limited only to formulas having a first order term of the
defocus amount.
With respect to separate patentability between proposed
new counts 2 and 3, we note that the statements of Mr. Utagawa
in the declaration accompanying Motion H2 do not demonstrate
anything meaningful with respect to the sign dependence
feature separate
and apart from the idea of having a first order term of the
- 29 -
Page: Previous 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007