Appeal No. 1998-1387 Page 10
Application No. 08/208,791
Further regarding claims 1, 11, 12, and 21, the
appellants make the following argument.
Independent Claim 1 recites "focus detecting means
for detecting a focus condition of the skincolored
portion" and exposure controlling means, operable
only in response to the skin-colored portion being
detected in an in-focus condition." Neither of the
cited references alone or in combination teach or
suggest [sic] these two elements .... (Appeal Br.
at 17.)
The examiner’s reply follows.
Imai et al discloses an image pickup apparatus which
is able to extract the skin color of a human being
so as to perform exposure (col. 4); besides that,
Haruki et al teaches the use of an image sensing
apparatus which can perform a focus operation before
performing an exposure operation at an in-focus area
(col. 9, lines 49); that is, an appropriate exposure
is always obtained since the exposure operation is
performed at the same in-focus area. (Examiner’s
Answer at 7-8.)
The appellants misinterpret the claimed invention.
“‘[T]he main purpose of the examination, to which every
application is subjected, is to try to make sure that what
each claim defines is patentable. [T]he name of the game is
the claim ....’” In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369,
47 USPQ2d 1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (quoting Giles S. Rich,
The Extent of the Protection and Interpretation of
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007