Appeal No. 2003-1392
Application No. 09/593,867
commensurate in scope with the limitations of claim 1. In other
words, claim 1 on appeal merely requires the simultaneous display
of a plurality of specimen images as opposed to the simultaneous
display of a plurality of stored images. Thus, the “displaying
plural specimen images simultaneously” limitation in claim 1 on
appeal reads directly on the simultaneous display in Iwabuchi of
the live specimen image and the one specimen image pulled from
storage. In the absence of other arguments directed to claim 1,
the anticipation rejection of claim 1 is sustained. The
anticipation rejection of claims 2 through 4 is likewise
sustained because appellants have chosen to let these claims
stand or fall with claim 1 (brief, page 3).
Turning to the obviousness rejection, appellants’ argument
(brief, page 6) that Iwabuchi neither teaches nor would have
suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art that “plural
specimen images corresponding to stored images be simultaneously
displayed” is, as noted supra, not commensurate in scope with the
limitation “displaying plural specimen images simultaneously” in
claim 5. Appellants’ argument (brief, page 6) that Iwabuchi
would not have suggested “the step of ‘prompting a human operator
to select a desired image from the plural displayed specimen
images’” is without merit because Iwabuchi teaches (column 3,
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007