Appeal No. 2000-0757
Application No. 09/021,393
in Fig. 4 of Soshi...since such appear to be a matter of design choice dictated by what
portions of the subject scene one wants to allocate to central photo metering and to the
peripheral photo metering areas” [answer-page 5].
We disagree. If Takagi taught some method of determining the appropriate shape
of the central portion for a particular result and the artisan would have been led by such a
teaching to conclude that a trapezoid shape central portion should or would be used for the
result sought by appellants, then we would agree that the combined teachings of the
applied references would have made the instant claimed subject matter obvious within the
meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103.
However, the examiner points to no such teaching in Takagi and we find no such
teaching in Takagi that would have led the artisan to form the central portion element in a
trapezoid shape. In fact, the examiner admits that no trapezoid shape for the central
portion is taught by Takagi but concludes that it would have been a “matter of design
choice.” It might be a matter of design choice where any particular shape would be equally
suggested by the prior art or where the prior art suggests how to get a particular result by
forming the central portion element of a specific shape. However, in the instant case,
Takagi suggests various shapes in Figure 6, none of which is a
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007