Appeal No. 2004-0262
Application No. 09/139,711
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 13 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Suzuki.
We make reference to the answer (Paper No. 16, mailed July
18, 2001) and to the final Office action (Paper No. 7, mailed
August 28, 2000) for the Examiner’s complete reasoning in support
of the rejection and to the appeal brief (Paper No. 15, filed
April 7, 2001) and to the reply brief, (Paper No. 17, filed
September 17, 2001) for Appellant’s arguments there against.
OPINION
The main point of contention is based on whether the claimed
clock frequency that is applied to the image sensor reads on the
charging period determined by image brightness as taught in
Suzuki. The Examiner equates the claimed “brightness sensing
means” with the controlling of the clock frequency during the
“photometering process” while the claimed “means for varying the
reading speed” is equated with elements 407-411 in Figure 30 of
Suzuki (final, page 2). To support this position, the Examiner
relies on column 25, lines 16-25 and 41-65 of the reference
(id.).
Appellant argues that the controlling of the charging period
based on brightness is not the same as the claimed controlling of
the clock frequency (brief, page 5). Appellant further contrasts
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007