Appeal No. 2003-0583
Application No. 09/270,688
of the claim. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136,
138 (Fed. Cir. 1986) and Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v.
American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458, 221 USPQ 481,
485 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Upon our review of Yanagida, we find that the person's face
must be correctly aligned with the center line 15 on the monitor.
See column 3, line 52 through column 4, line 4 of Yanagida. In
order to maintain the correct alignment, the chair is
repositioned. Therefore, the laser beam method (col. 5, lines
53-65) does not meet Appellants' claimed limitation of "at least
one laser scanning station having at least one movable laser
scanning unit" as recited in Appellants' claim 13. See col. 3,
lines 38-68. There is no teaching that "displacing the light
film relative to the person's face" (col. 5, line 65) is done by
scanning the laser, instead of the disclosed method of moving the
chair.
Appellants further argue that Yanagida fails to teach
scanning the under surface of a person's foot to create a shoe
insole. Appellants' claim 13 recites "determining coordinates of
an under surface of the foot by directing at least one line of
laser light along the under surface . . . at least one insole -
milling station including a milling assembly for forming the
66
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007