Appeal No. 1999-2687
Application 08/174,353
examiner.
In the request for rehearing, appellants’ first point
asserts that the decision by the Board reflects a technical
misunderstanding of the prior art. Specifically, appellants
argue that Hamada corrects for shake on a real-time basis, and
therefore, does not use stored shake information for shake
correction. Appellants also argue that the portions of Wilson
and Hamada relied on in formulating the rejection are
inconsistent with each other [request, pages 1-4].
Appellants’ position improperly analyzes the obviousness
of physically combining Wilson’s preferred embodiment with
Hamada’s preferred embodiment. Wilson was used as a teaching
that shake can be corrected at a later time by using previously
stored shake information. Wilson, however, does not describe the
nature of the shake correction. Hamada was cited for the sole
purpose of teaching that shake correction involves a comparison
between detected shake information and image information. Thus,
when the shake correction occurs at a later time as suggested by
Wilson, it would have been obvious to the artisan that this
correction would be achieved by performing a comparison as
suggested by Hamada. Therefore, we are not persuaded by this
particular argument that the previous decision was in error.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007