Appeal No. 96-3994
Application 08/260,485
first decision means and the object brightness measured by
said light metering device; and
a controller which controls the driving mechanism
corresponding to the movement of the diaphragm determined by
said second decision means.
The following reference is relied on by the examiner:
Maruyama 4,899,191 Feb. 6,
1990
Claims 1 through 8 stand rejected under the second
paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 as being indefinite. Claims 1,
4, 7 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Maruyama. Finally, claims 2, 3, 5 and 6 stand
rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103. As evidence of obviousness, the examiner
relies upon Maruyama alone.
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellants and
the examiner, reference is made to the various briefs and
answers for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We reverse each of the three noted rejections of the
claims on appeal.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007