Appeal No. 2005-2619
Application No. 09/734,826
50 USPQ2d at 1617, citing McElmurry v. Arkansas Power & Light Co., 995 F.2d
1576, 1578, 27 USPQ2d 1129, 1131 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Further, 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). Therefore, we look to the
language of independent claim 1 as to recited limitations. The examiner maintains that
Uehara teaches all of the limitations but for the picture recording means mechanically
connected to the halting means . . . .” (Answer at page 5). The examiner relies upon the
teachings of Shirai for suggesting this limitation. (Answer at page 5). We agree with the
examiner and find that while Uehara teaches adjusting the positioning and direction of
the microphone for the location of the mouth along with the detection of the position
mouth, that it would have similarly been obvious to one skilled in the art to have
attached both the camera and the microphone systems to the single movable
mechanism as taught and fairly suggested by Shirai. (Shirai at para. [0009] and
abstract). While Shirai is primarily interested in the movement of only the camera to
issue the cards, we agree with the examiner that Schaffrina teaches and suggests that
the height of the video phone module is adjusted for the height of the user while the
microphone and speakers are not shown in the drawings, they are on either side of the
screen/monitor. (Schaffrina at page 3 and abstract). We agree with the examiner that
Schaffrina teaches and fairly suggests the movability of the audio and video
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007