Ex parte NOH - Page 2




             Appeal No. 1998-2576                                                                                   
             Application 08/413,944                                                                                 

                           1.  A device for controlling movie camera shutter speed comprising:                      
                                  an iris opening detection means for sensing the extent of iris opening            
             and generating a signal representative of the extent of iris opening;                                  
                                  an adjusting signal output means for detecting an environmental                   
             illuminance in response to the signal from the iris opening detection means; and                       
                                  a microcomputer for determining a limited usable range of shutter                 
             speed mode for performing a manual shutter speed in response to the signal received                    
             from the adjusting signal output means.                                                                

             The examiner relies on the following reference:                                                        
             Takahashi et al. (Takahashi)    5,483,280        Jan. 9, 1996                                          
             (effective filing date of Mar. 19, 1993)                                                               
             Claims 1-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by the                        
             disclosure of Takahashi.                                                                               
             Rather than repeat the arguments of appellant or the examiner, we make reference                       
             to the briefs and the answer for the respective details thereof.                                       
                                                     OPINION                                                        

             We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejection advanced                      
             by the examiner and the evidence of anticipation relied upon by the examiner as support                
             for the rejection.  We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into consideration, in reaching              
             our decision, the appellant’s arguments set forth in the briefs along with the examiner’s              
             rationale in support of the rejection and arguments in rebuttal set forth in the examiner’s            
             answer.                                                                                                

                                                         2                                                          





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007