Appeal No. 1998-1387 Page 8
Application No. 08/208,791
the prior art as a whole to suggest the desirability, and thus
the obviousness, of making the combination.’” In re Beattie,
974 F.2d 1309, 1311-12, 24 USPQ2d 1040, 1042 (Fed. Cir. 1992)
(quoting Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist &
Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1462, 221 USPQ 481, 488 (Fed. Cir.
1984)).
Here, Haruki teaches performing both an automatic
exposure adjustment operation and an automatic focusing
operation. Specifically, “description is made of a main
routine in the automatic focusing operation and the automatic
iris operation (automatic exposure adjustment) by the
microcomputer 26.” Col. 7, ll. 25-28. The reference further
teaches performing the automatic exposure adjustment operation
after performing the automatic focusing operation.
Specifically, Haruki includes the following disclosure.
[A] count value of a counter AECNT provided for
carrying out the automatic focusing operation and
the automatic iris operation in a time-divisional
manner is decremented ... to determine in the step
33 whether or not the count value is zero. The
automatic focusing operation is carried out if the
count value is not zero, while the automatic iris
operation is carried out only when the count value
is zero. Id. at ll. 36-44.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007