Appeal No. 2006-1020
Application No. 09/899,066
OPINION
We affirm the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of
claims 1-5, 9, 11-13, 17 and 26-27, and the rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 6-8, 10, 14-16, 18-25 and 28.1
Rejection of Claims 1-5, 9, 11-13, 17 and 26-27
Beis teaches switching between two modes in a CCD
camera (Col. 6 lines 14-16) according to detection of the
incoming light intensity as compared to a threshold light
intensity (Col. 2 lines 17-36) wherein the modes are
defined by insertion or removal of a filter. Specifically,
an infrared filter is inserted when daytime operation is
detected and removed when nighttime operation is detected
(Col. 6 lines 35-45). It is the examiner’s view that Beis
does not teach that insertion or removal of a filter causes
an out-of-focus condition or that such a condition is
correctable by switching between pre-stored zoom trace
data.
1 In response to appellant’s traversal of “newly presented
grounds of rejection” (brief at 10) we note that the
examiner’s remarks of pages 3-7 of the answer are merely
responsive to appellant’s arguments.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007