Appeal No. 2002-0721
Application No. 08/930,100
We first will address the rejection of claims 13 through 20
and 25 through 43 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by
Lamprecht. Appellant argues that Lamprecht does not disclose
measuring a stereo base distance between the pair of eyes as
required by Appellant's claim 13. Appellant also argues that
Lamprecht does not disclose using the stereo base distance and
the alignment directions to establish a fixation point as
required by Appellant's claim 13.
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 USPQ 1523,
1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998). As our reviewing court further states
that "the terms used in the claims bear a 'heavy presumption'
that they mean what they say and have the ordinary meaning that
would be attributed to those words by persons skilled in the
relevant art." Texas Digital Systems, Inc. v. Telegenix, Inc.,
308 F.3d 1193, 1201-02 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
We note that independent claim 13 recites
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007