Appeal 2007-0902
Application 10/077,500
conclusion of obviousness’ . . . . [H]owever, the analysis need not seek out
precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged
claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc.,
127 S. Ct. 1727, 1741, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn,
441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
Further, as pointed out by our reviewing court, we must first
determine the scope of the claim. “[T]he name of the game is the claim.” In
re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369, 47 USPQ2d 1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir.
1998). Therefore, we look to the limitations as recited and disputed in
independent claim 1. From our review of the Examiner’s rejection, we find
that the Examiner has set forth a proper initial showing, with respect to
independent claim 1, to shift the burden to Appellants. We note that the
claim limitations in independent claim 1 recite “a camera comprising a
strobe for supplying light to a scene, the strobe flashing repeatedly
throughout composition of a photograph.” Interpreting the claim in light of
Appellants’ Specification, we find that the Specification is replete with
alternative embodiments and the use of “may” thereby giving a wide range
of interpretation to the claim language. We note that the Specification at
page 4, lines 14-16, states that the “camera flashes the strobe (106) one or
more times during the time the photographer is composing a photograph,
thus providing additional light (107) to the scene.” Here, the Specification
states that one flash is sufficient, but the claim language recites “repeatedly”
which would entail at least two flashes. We interpret “repeatedly” to be
mean “on occasion” or “more than a single time” before a picture is taken.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013