Appeal No. 1998-2965
Application No. 08/589,156
the wall defining the battery chamber is formed integrally with the lens barrel...” is found at
Figure 4 of the reference. The examiner contends that the lens hood 8 of Takagai is part
of the lens barrel which supports the lens system and that since the lens hood extends to
the bottom of the camera and under the battery compartment, forming a wall of that
compartment, the claim language is met.
Appellant argues that the lens hood 8 is not part of the lens barrel at all and does
not act in any way to support the lens system. In fact, states appellant, “Takagai does not
have a battery chamber that is integral with a lens barrel” because “the battery is installed
in a part of the camera that is entirely separate from the part that houses the lens system”
[principal brief-page 5]. Accordingly, in appellant’s view, the cited claim limitation is not
met by Takagai.
We agree with appellant. Clearly, in Takagai, the lens system is supported by lens
holder 50 [column 6, lines 35-36]. Thus, this lens holder 50 would be equivalent to the
recited “lens barrel” in the instant claim. That being the case, nothing in Takagai discloses
or even suggests that at least part of the wall defining the battery chamber [the chamber
holding battery 24 in Figure 4] in Takagai is formed integrally with the lens holder 50.
While part of the camera wall in Takagai which extends from the lens hood 8 does
form part of the battery chamber wall, it is our view that the examiner’s interpretation that
the lens hood may be considered as a lens barrel supporting the lens
system in a camera body is unreasonable. Lens hood 8 of Takagai is not a “lens barrel”
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007