Appeal No. 2006-2345
Application No. 10/366,458
into image processor 17 in order to obtain distance information
(specification, paragraph [0019]).
Therefore, we remain unpersuaded by Appellant’s arguments
that any error in the Examiner=s determination, based on the
overall disclosures, teachings, and suggestions of the prior art,
and the level of skill in the art, regarding the obviousness of
the claimed subject matter has occurred. Accordingly, as the
Examiner has established a prima facie case of obviousness, we
sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 1 and 5.
Turning now to the rejection of claims 2, 4 and 6, we note
that Appellant’s arguments in support of patentability of these
claims include assertions similar to those addressed above with
respect to claim 1 (brief, pages 11-12). Appellant further
argues that Nakamura’s movement is without any antecedent
correlation between the zoom ratio and the infrared sensor
position (brief, page 12). We disagree and find the teachings
and suggestions in Nakamura to be sufficient for the ordinary
skilled in the art to recognize the correlation between the
movement of the infrared sensor and the focal position of its
zoom lens (col. 3, line 45 through col. 4, line 3).
Additionally, we agree with the Examiner’s rationale (answer,
page 12) for relying on Hoshino as an example of known automated
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007