Appeal No. 1997-3819
Application No. 08/278,153
object.
On page 6 of the Examiner’s answer (answer), the Examiner
asserts that Flodin teaches that the “line is effectively
projected onto the log as seen by the operator.” The Examiner
asserts that this teaching meets claim 1, as all claim 1
recites is projecting an image onto the log, which is taught
by Flodin.
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). Claims will be given their
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification, and
limitations appearing in the specification are not to be read
into the claims. In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 858, 225 USPQ 1,
5 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
We find that the scope of claim 1 includes that the image
of a line is projected into the scanning area, and that the
image is formed on the surface of the object. These
limitations are found in the “means for projecting at least
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007