Appeal No. 1998-1387 Page 7
Application No. 08/208,791
knowledge of persons skilled in the art to complement that
[which is] disclosed ....’” In re Bode, 550 F.2d 656, 660,
193 USPQ 12, 16 (CCPA 1977) (quoting In re Wiggins, 488 F.2d
538, 543, 179 USPQ 421, 424 (CCPA 1973)). Those persons “must
be presumed to know something” about the art “apart from what
the references disclose.” In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 516,
135 USPQ 317, 319 (CCPA 1962). We next address the
appellants’ arguments regarding the obviousness of the claims.
Regarding claims 1, 10-13, and 18-21, the appellants
argue, “there is no rationale for combining the two cited
references other than hindsight ....” (Appeal Br. at 11.)
The examiner’s reply follows.
[I]t would have been obvious ... to implement the
accumulating circuits, iris motor control circuit
and microcomputer of Haruki et al in the camera
circuit of Imai et al, so as to obtain the focus
detecting circuit and exposure controlling circuit
operable only in response to the skin-colored
portion being detected in an in-focus condition.
This is because the focus operation, which is first
performed by the microcomputer 26, would provide
more accurate exposure on an image subject.
(Examiner’s Answer at 6.)
The appellants misconstrue the criteria for combining
references. “‘[T]he question is whether there is something in
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007