Appeal No. 2001-1815
Application 08/924,865
thing may result for a give set of circumstances is not
sufficient.” Id. Citing Continental Can Co., 948 F.3d at 1269,
20 USPQ2d at 1749 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
Appellant argues that Oyashiki fails to anticipate all the
limitations recited in Appellant’s claims. Appellant argues that
Oyashiki neither expressly nor impliedly teaches “camera’s line
of sight being limited at a predetermined stop,” as recited in
claims 1-6. Furthermore, Appellant argues that Oyashiki neither
expressly nor impliedly teaches “limiting the position of the
[sic, said] camera to the [sic, said] predetermined stop limit,”
as recited in claim 7. See pages 4 and 5 of Appellant’s brief.
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 must determine what is meant by “predetermined stop.”
For interpretation of this claim limitation, we refer to
Appellant’s specification. The specification makes clear that
the stops are intended to limit the rotation of the camera and
that the stops are calculated and set before the normal operation
of the camera. This is evidenced from the disclosure of
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007