Interference No. 103,208
Hoshino et al. v. Tanaka
undermines Hoshino’s contention that the features were
unobvious to Tanaka. We note further that even Hoshino
recognizes (Br. at 39) that in Tanaka’s first Japanese
priority application there is a statement that higher order
equations may be employed. Indeed, on page 20 of the English
translation of Tanaka’s first Japanese priority application
60-219521 contained in the file of Tanaka’s involved
application, it is stated that a function other than the
second order function, "for example, a tertiary or higher-
order function" (emphasis added) can be adopted. Tertiary
means third order. The language suggests that Tanaka was
aware that third order equations may be used. A third order
equation, unlike a second order equation, does not ignore the
sign of the detected defocus amount. A number raised to the
third power preserves its original sign. These facts further
erode Hoshino’s argument about what was not obvious to Tanaka.
For all of the foregoing reasons, it is clear that
Hoshino’s Motion H2 has failed to set forth a prima facie case
that the proposed new counts 2, 3, and 4 define separately
patentable, i.e., patentably distinct, inventions with respect
to count 1.
- 36 -
Page: Previous 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007