Appeal No. 95-5109
Application No. 08/063,665
This demonstrates that the pair of signals
contemplated in Kondo must be of the same type,
i.e., two integrated values. . . . Therefore, Kondo
does not, as the Examiner alleges, disclose using
two different auto-focus measurement values to
detect a lens focus condition.
We agree. “Applicant’s invention, as defined in claim 3,
checks an average of the line peak values and a field maximum
value signal to determine if both have changed” (Brief, page
23). Appellant correctly concludes (Brief, page 24) that:
The mere fact that both systems use redundancy by
checking two auto-focus values does not make claim 3
obvious. The Examiner’s logic that since redundancy
is known in the prior art, it is obvious to use two
known signals in a redundant manner to produce a
result, be it novel or not, is incorrect.
In summary, the obviousness rejection of claim 3 is
reversed because the claimed redundant means for producing
first and second auto-focus measurement values, and the
averaging means are neither taught by nor would have been
suggested by the teachings of Kondo.
Turning next to the obviousness rejection of claims 1, 2,
6 through 10 and 13, we have already established supra that
Kondo discloses the use of either a peak detector circuit for
detecting the maximum level of a high frequency component of a
luminance signal during a video line interval or a peak
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007