Appeal No. 2005-1666 Page 3
Application No. 10/356,079
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
The examiner has rejected claims 1, 8 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Miyamoto. We note initially that to support a rejection of a claim under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b), it must be shown that each element of the claim is found, either
expressly described or under principles of inherency, in a single prior art reference. See
Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir.
1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984).
The examiner is of the opinion that Miyamoto describes each element of claim 1
as detailed on page 3 of the answer.
The appellants argue that Miyamoto does not describe a camera that comprises
a processor which computes a “measure of focus” using the image data at each of a
plurality of focal distances or an indicator that indicates the measure of focus as a
“function of focal distance,” as required by claim 1. In appellants’ view, Miyamoto does
not describe an indication of a “measure of focus” but rather of whether the subject is in
focus or out of focus.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007