Appeal No. 2003-0517
Application 08/899,848
appellants' observation that there is no discussion of the
problems related to reflectivity of the surface being
photographed in the combination. On the other hand, there is a
significant discussion related to brightness which is a measure
of reflectivity of the surface being photographed and, as
explained at columns 1 and 2, brightness is a factor in
determining exposure levels or exposure times according to
general photographic principles. Additionally, there is no
recognition or statement of reflectivity per se in the subject
matter recited in claims 10-12 and 16. Finally, if the
combination of Iwai and Cline taught a variable exposure camera,
the examiner would not have relied upon the additional teachings
in Tsunefuji to reject these claims on appeal.
In view of the foregoing, of claims 1-16 on appeal, we have
sustained the rejection only of claims 10-12 and 16, and reversed
the rejection of claims 1-9 and 13-15. As such, the decision of
the examiner is affirmed-in-part.1
1 We leave it to the examiner to pursue concerns under the
enablement portion of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, of the
total lack of any structural elements disclosed with which to
embody the control units 14, 15 in Figure 2 as well as the
evaluation units 16-18 in this figure.
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007