Appeal 2007-0902
Application 10/077,500
Appellants argue in the Reply Brief at page 2 that “composing” is
defined at page one of the Specification, yet we find the remainder of the
Specification uses “may” in describing the composing of a photograph
(Specification at pages 4 and 5). Therefore, we cannot agree that the
Specification defines or limits “composing” a photograph. Additionally, we
note that independent claim 1 does not recite that the photograph is taken.
Therefore, we find that repeated use of the flash for testing or fun by a
photographer or use of red-eye reduction flashing or infrared distance
measurements would be sufficient to meet the language of independent
claim 1 since no other steps or structure is recited in the claim language to
add context to the claimed invention.
Here, the Examiner has relied upon the teachings of Tanaka and the
use of pre-light emissions and use of the electronic view finder (EVF) for the
repeated flashing of the camera strobe. The Examiner maintains that Tanaka
shows two pre-light emissions in figure 12 (Answer 4). From our review of
figure 12, we find only one pre-light emission and one light emission
illustrated in the figure. While not expressly stated by Tanaka, we find that
it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the
invention that if the first pre-light emission showed that the composition of
the desired image was not properly framed for the desired picture, then the
photographer would again depress the shutter button half way to get another
image on the EVF for the same desired image and continue the process until
the proper composition of the picture was achieved. Then the photographer
would depress the shutter button to the full depressed position and take the
final picture [Tanaka paragraphs 0168-0176].
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013