Appeal No. 2003-0047
Application No. 09/350,335
OPINION
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of the claims,
Appellants point out that the claims are directed to conserving
battery energy required during a sweep-out operation and differ
from the prior art that relates to anti-blooming (brief, page 14;
reply brief, page 2). Appellants further point to Figures 10 and
11 of Kondo and assert that although a sweep-out operation is
performed after the shutter aperture has reached the desired
opening, there is no mention of a Judging means for judging the
occurrence of another camera function (brief, page 22; reply
brief, page 9). Further Referring to figure 12, Appellants point
out that Kondo provides no teaching or suggestion for altering
the frequency of sweep-out pulses responsive to the need for
battery energy by another function (brief, page 23; reply brief,
page 10). Additionally, Appellants argue that the two techniques
disclosed by Kondo provide either for frequency of anti-blooming
pulses being a function of the amount of light or for discharging
the picture elements prior to operation of the flash without
changing the frequency of these pulses (brief, page 25).
In response to Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner equates
the means for closing the shutter in Kondo with the claimed
“operation condition judging means” and asserts that the change
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007