Appeal No. 1998-2576
Application 08/413,944
shutter speed on the shutter activation button is untenable. Therefore, Takahashi does not
fully meet every limitation of independent claim 1 as required under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the anticipation rejection of claim 1.
Each of independent claims 2, 10 and 11 also recites the control of a camera in
manual shutter speed mode. For reasons discussed above, Takahashi does not meet this
limitation of the claims. Therefore, we also do not sustain the examiner’s anticipation
rejection of claims 2-11.
Although we recognize that the appealed claims are extremely broad in scope, the
examiner is still required to present a factual record which supports the anticipation
rejection. The claims essentially recite an automatic operation by computer which is used
even in manual shutter speed mode. Although we cannot say if there is prior art available
which may render the claimed invention unpatentable, we can say that Takahashi does not
provide a factual record which can support the examiner’s rejection.
In summary, we have not sustained the examiner’s rejection of the appealed claims.
Therefore, the decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1-11 is reversed.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007