Appeal No. 2000-0757
Application No. 09/021,393
Reference is made to the briefs and answer for the respective positions of
appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
We reverse.
The examiner cites Takei as evidence of the photo-sensor of independent claim 9
but for the central photometric element having a trapezoid shape. Rather, as shown in
Figure 2, Takei discloses a rectangular shaped element.
The examiner relies on Figure 4 of Soshi for an alleged teaching of a circular
photometric element about 3% of the photometric surface area. However, since this
limitation is found only in dependent claim 35, it escapes us as to why the examiner
includes the Soshi reference in the statement of rejection of independent claim 9.
Finally, the examiner cites Takagi for the teaching of employing various shapes for
the central photometric element, pointing specifically to the “rice ball” shape in Figure 6D
and noting how it “is getting very close to a trapezoid shape” [answer-page 4]. Since
Takagi teaches that the central area may take different shapes and sizes, the examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious “to use other shapes and sizes for the central
photometric element 4 in Fig. 2 of Takei...and central photometric element I
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007