Interference No. 103,208
Hoshino et al. v. Tanaka
corrected con- version coefficient K is determined
in accordance with a second order curve that
produces the same value of K for -ÎBf as for +ÎBf.
(3) (pages 4-5) By employing two (or more)
correction coefficients in determining the corrected
conversion coefficient, improved focusing accuracy
is obtained, since the corrected conversion
coefficient (K) can be calculated more precisely.
(Page 5) More accurate focusing can be achieved
with such a formula [a first order and a higher
order term of the detected amount of defocus, having
respective first and second correction
coefficients], because the corrected conversion
coefficient can be calculated more precisely when
accounting for the fact that the relationship
between the corrected conversion coefficient and the
detected amount of defocus is not entirely a
straight-line relationship in some lens systems.
We have many problems with Hoshino’s arguments and
evidence, as was presented in motion H2, in support of the
contention that each of the proposed new counts 2, 3, and 4,
represents a separately patentable invention, i.e., an
invention that is patentably distinct, from count 1.
An expert’s affidavit, if it presents mere conclusions
and few facts to buttress the opinions proffered, fails in its
purpose, and is entitled to little weight. See, e.g., In re
Brandstadter, 484 F.2d 1395, 1406, 179 USPQ 286, 294 (CCPA
1973). Note also the following statement of the Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Rohm and Haas Co. v.
- 23 -
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007