Interference No. 103,208
Hoshino et al. v. Tanaka
senior party Tanaka. In this first declaration, Mr. Utagawa
makes three points which are especially pertinent to the issue
of adding proposed new counts 2, 3, and 4:
(1) (pages 2-3) [W]hen focusing is based on a
corrected conversion coefficient K determined in
accordance with a formula having a first order term
of the detected amount of defocus, there is a
substantial improvement
in the accuracy of focusing, as compared to focusing
based on a corrected conversion coefficient
determined
in accordance with a formula that lacks a first
order term of the detected amount of defocus. For
example, a formula that has merely a second order
term of the detected amount of defocus produces a
substantial error in the corrected conversion
coefficient, as is apparent from a comparison of
line M1 and the second order curve superimposed on
Fig. 3 in Exhibit A.
(2) (pages 3-4) [W]hen the calculating means
determines the corrected conversion coefficient in
accordance with a formula having a first order term
of the detected amount of defocus and that depends
on both the magni- tude and the sign of the detected
amount of defocus, there is a substantial
improvement in focusing accu- racy, as compared with
focusing based on a corrected conversion coefficient
determined in accordance with a formula that
produces the same corrected conversion coefficient
regardless of the sign of the detected amount of
defocus. This is apparent in Fig. 3 of Exhibit B
attached hereto in which the first order dash line
M1' (producing the same value of K regardless of the
sign of ÎBf) shows a substantial error (divergence
from line M1) in determination of the corrected
conver- sion coefficient K for -ÎBf. Similarly, in
Exhibit A, there is a substantial error when the
- 22 -
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007