Appeal No. 96-1457
Application No. 08/098,165
connection to each other. The 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of
claim 25 is sustained.
Turning next to the obviousness rejection of claims 1, 5, 6,
8 through 10 and 14, the examiner acknowledges (Answer, page 6)
that “Cummins . . . lacks a plurality of lenses of different
predetermined focusing powers . . . .” Cummins discloses a
portrait camera (column 1, line 19) that has “a plurality of
lenses . . . with focus and the aperture fixed relative to a
subject to be posed at a given distance . . .” (column 1, lines
47 through 50). Ohmura discloses a dual lens camera “having a
relatively long focus lens [T] and a relatively short focus lens
[W] either one of which is selected for telephotographing and
wide angle photographing” (Answer, page 6). According to the
examiner (Answer, page 6), “it would have been obvious to one
having ordinary skill in the art to provide the camera of Cummins
with a plurality of different focus lens, as taught by Ohmura, in
order to take pictures in both telephoto and wide angle mode.”
Appellants argue (Brief, page 10) that:
Moreover, in view of the . . . purpose and
direction of Cummins, the portrait camera of that
reference could not be provided with lenses of
different focal powers without destroying the identity
of the camera as a portrait camera. One of ordinary
skill in the art would not incorporate multiple focus
lenses into the camera of Cummins inasmuch as Cummins
unequivocally states that its lenses have a common
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007