Appeal No. 1997-3919
Application 08/392,160
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 note that unlike the Appellant's claim 1, Appellant's
claim 5 is not limited to an index projecting optical system
for projecting index for focus by luminous flux having
wavelength of a visible area. In contrast, Appellant's claim
5 recites "a focus index projecting optical system for
projecting a light of focus index to the object to be
observed."
Appellant argues that Salzmann does not teach a focus
index projecting optical system for projecting a light of
focus index to the object to be observed. We note that the
Examiner's rejection does not rely on Salzmann for this
limitation. In contrast, the Examiner relies on Kinoshita for
the limitation of a focus index projecting optical system for
12
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007