Appeal No. 1996-2047
Application No. 08/274,141
Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d
1452, 1458, 221 USPQ 481, 485 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
On page 3 of the reply brief, Appellants argue that their
image requires during the step of “destructuring the image of
the scene” an operation of “modifying a direction of the
camera line of sight,” as specifically required by independent
claim 1 and also set forth as a similar requirement in
independent claim 8. Appellants state that according to their
invention, when the scene image is destructed, not only is the
focus of the camera changed, but the line of sight of the
camera is also changed. Appellants argue that Hanafusa does
not teach or suggest any operation of changing a line of sight
of the camera in addition to changing the focus of the
focusing lens 5.
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).
We note that Appellants’ independent claims all require
modifying a direction of the camera line of sight. In
particular, we note that independent claim 1 recites the step
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007