Interference No. 103,208
Hoshino et al. v. Tanaka
and no meaningful improvement would be achieved by the
addition of a higher order term of the defocus amount to the
formula for calculating the corrected conversion coefficient.
But none of count 1 or proposed new counts 2, 3, and 4, is
limited to any particular type of lens system. Thus, the
assertion of improvement is not commensurate in scope with
proposed new count 4.
Given count 1 which recites that the corrected conversion
coefficient is calculated on the basis of the detected defocus
amount and which does not exclude higher order terms, that
higher order terms may be present to accompany a first order
term of the defocus amount follows from a straight reading of
count 1 and thus would be readily appreciated by one with
ordinary skill in the art who is presumed to possess basic
reading skills and certain level common sense. See, e.g., In
re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969).
The parties should not overlook or lose sight of the fact
that insofar as Hoshino’s Motion H2 is concerned, Hoshino must
- 31 -
Page: Previous 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007