Appeal No. 2000-1852
Application No. 08/924,856
Christian inherently includes a visible target by disclosing the
presence of the robot on a factory floor and a position on the
floor to which the robot is directed (answer, pages 3 & 4).
Before addressing the Examiner’s rejection, it is essential
that we understand the claimed subject matter and determine its
scope. Claim interpretation must begin with the language of the
claim itself. See Smithkline Diagnostics, Inc. v. Helena
Laboratories Corp., 859 F.2d 878, 882, 8 USPQ2d 1468, 1472 (Fed.
Cir. 1988). Accordingly, as required by our reviewing court, we
will initially direct our attention to Appellant’s claim 1 in
order to determine its scope. “[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).
Appellant’s claim 1 requires that the means for taking
images comprise “at least two video cameras placed to provide
images of the entire moving area ... from at least two
directions.” Appellant would have us read “at least two video
cameras placed to provide images of the entire moving area” as
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007