Appeal No. 2006-1900
Application No. 10/163,946
to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not
differentiate the claimed apparatus for a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed
structural limitations. Note also Ex parte Wikdahl, 10 USPQ2d 1546, 1548 (Bd. Pat.
App. & Int. 1989) and In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 580, 152 USPQ 235, 238, CCPA 1967).
Appellant’s additional argument at page 7 of the principal brief on appeal that
Mikoshiba does not disclose a portable scanner with a position detector is equally
unpersuasive of patentability. Other than impliedly detecting based merely on the name
position detector, the claimed position detector performs no stated function. Thus, there
is no stated function to detect any position with respect to anything or detect any physical
relationship to anything. In Mikoshiba, the claimed aperture position detector circuit 224
clearly may read on the claimed limitation in addition to the range-finding circuit 361 in
Figure 1. In Figure 2, S2 performs a range-finding function which is clearly disclosed at
column 3, line 45 to at least column 4, line 5 in Mikoshiba where it indicates that a range-
finding means measures the distance from the camera to a subject to be imaged.
Therefore, the corresponding assertion at the bottom of page 3 of the reply brief that
Mikoshiba discloses neither position detecting hardware nor position detecting software
is misplaced.
We also note in passing in terms of the scanning argument that Mikoshiba’s CCD
element 213 within the electronic viewfinder section 200 in Figure 1 additionally scans
objects to form an image thereof by successive line transfers of accumulated charges.
This is otherwise disclosed as a part of the prior art anyway according to the discussion
that appears to teach such charged coupled devices at page 3 of the appellant’s
Background of the Invention discussion of the specification as filed.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007