Interference No. 103,208
Hoshino et al. v. Tanaka
defocus amount in the calculation formula. Specifically, if
the presence of a first order term of the defocus amount is
what causes a substantial improvement according to one part of
Mr. Utagawa’s declaration, then the improvement due to a
combination of having a first order term and dependence on the
sign of the defocus amount cannot be attributed solely to
dependence on the sign of the defocus amount. It should be
noted that a first order term of the defocus amount
necessarily attributes signifi- cance to the sign of the
defocus amount. Unlike the case with terms raised to an even
number power, the sign is not lost with a first order term.
For these reasons, Motion H2 has not sufficiently
distinguished proposed new count 2 from proposed new count 3.
With respect to proposed new count 4, Mr. Utagawa
essentially states that using an additional higher order term
together with a first order term of the detected amount of
defocus yields further improvement because in some lens
systems the relationship between the corrected conversion
coefficient and the detected amount of defocus is not entirely
a straight-line (linear) relationship. It is implicit that at
least in some lens systems the relationship is strictly linear
- 30 -
Page: Previous 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007