Interference No. 103,208
Hoshino et al. v. Tanaka
successfully demonstrate separate patentability
(nonobviousness) of the proposed new counts with respect to
count 1 and each other. For an affirmance of the APJ’s denial
of Hoshino’s Motion H2, it is not necessary for us to conclude
that the proposed new counts would have been obvious with
respect to count 1.
In portions of its brief, Hoshino presents another line
of argument in support of the assertion that the proposed new
counts are separately patentable from count 1. In essence,
according to Hoshino (Hoshino brief at 14 and 31), even
Tanaka, an expert in the art of designing autofocus cameras,
in 1985 when he filed Japanese priority application 60-219521
(JP '521), did not think of a formula having a first order
term of the detected amount of defocus or utilizing the sign
of the defocus amount but instead, settled on a second order
function based on Īd , i.e., S = S + A x Īd .2 2
d 0
Hoshino points out (Br. at 32-33) that it was Tanaka’s
second Japanese priority application which specifically judges
the sign (direction) of the defocus, so that the sign may be
utilized in calculating the corrected conversion coefficient.
According to Hoshino (Br. at 32), it was "months" after the
- 32 -
Page: Previous 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007