Appeal No. 1999-2019
Application No. 08/646,810
We therefore conclude that the examiner’s finding of anticipation of claim 45 is in
error. We do not sustain the section 102 rejection of claim 45, nor the rejection of claims
46-48 dependent thereon.
Neither can we sustain the section 103 rejection of independent claims 1, 6, 9, and
18. The claims require, to varying degrees, an association between discriminating or
detecting the operation state of a reading device, or one of a writing device and a reading
device, and controlling a function of the image pickup device in accordance with the
operation state of the reading device or writing device. Karasawa does not disclose or
suggest that the operation of the image sensor is influenced by any discrimination or
detection of the reading or writing of the image data to or from the output buffers. Nor do
we find that Kojima remedies the deficiency of Karasawa.
For claims 1-4 and 6-9 (claims 1, 6, and 9 independent), the examiner points to
column 5, lines 13-20, in Kojima’s “Summary of the Invention” section, for disclosure of a
“controlling device for controlling/discriminating operation of writing means and reading
means one after another in a cycle....” (Final Rejection, page 5.) The examiner next
quotes from claim 37 of Kojima, at column 28, lines 10-16 of the reference, and then back
to the same section of the “Summary of the Invention.” “[T]hese controlling means
inherently control the reading and writing operations in accordance with the result of
discrimination.” (Final Rejection, page 6.)
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007