Appeal 2006-3381
Application 10/162,317
6. Claims 53, 55, 56, 57, and 60. For these claims, in the Brief (9)
the Appellants argue to distinguish their specimen from that of
Brackett by mentioning the extra difficulties of imaging a
“thick” specimen. The Appellants seem to be referring to
limitations concerning the specimen that we do not find in the
claims.
7. Claim 54 recites various advanced microscopes that are not
itemized in the Brackett reference. However, claim 54 merely
requires that the specimen be "imagable" by one of the recited
imaging systems. Appellants do not argue that the tissue
specimen in Brackett is not imagable by any of the instruments,
but seem to argue there is no suggestion for using the devices
(an argument that is irrelevant to an anticipation rejection).
8. Claims 61 to 63 recite a limitation concerning the specimen
“shaped specially with respect to one or more of said outer
edges.” Examiner has rejected these claims indicating that the
specimen is shaped [as described in paragraph 3 above]. Since
the nature of the special shaping is not limited in the claim, we
find that the squeezing of the film 18 shapes the specimen in
the center of the slide for viewing. That can be considered
special.
B. With regard to the rejection of claims 36, 42, 43, and 44 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) for being obvious over Brackett:
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013