Appeal No. 2005-1666 Page 5
Application No. 10/356,079
focal distance would involve an indication of the measure of focus (in or out of focus in
the Miyamoto device) for each of several focal distances.
In view of the foregoing, we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Miyamoto. We will also not sustain
this rejection as it is directed to claims 2 through 6 as these claims are dependent on
claim 1. We will likewise not sustain this rejection as it is directed to claim 8, and claims
9 through 13 dependent thereon, as claim 8 also recites that the measure of focus is
detected at a plurality of focal distances and that the measure of focus is a function of
focal distance.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1 to 6 and 8 to 13
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007