Interference No. 103,208
Hoshino et al. v. Tanaka
Moreover, Hoshino does not dispute that Tanaka did
disclose, in the second Japanese priority application (61-
058453) a formula utilizing the sign of the defocus amount,
and in the involved U.S. application a formula utilizing a
first order term of the defocus amount. The most that can be
said is that Tanaka specifically described a formula using a
second order term of the defocus amount before he described a
formula using a first order term. There may be a countless
number of reasons that may account for that order of events,
only one of which is the possibility that it was not obvious
to Tanaka that the formula can include a first order term of
the defocus amount. There is and can be no rule that all
embodiments of an invention which is not described in the very
first patent application filed by the inventor in a series of
patent applications around the world are
presumed to have been unobvious to the inventor. Furthermore,
actual disclosure of the feature or features at issue in any
of Tanaka’s patent applications, e.g., the second Japanese
priority application or the involved U.S. application,
- 35 -
Page: Previous 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007