Appeal No. 95-0206
Application 07/866,789
We note that neither of these latter features is
specifically recited in claim 1. Even though the examiner
applied the three references against all the claims on appeal,
the examiner did not identify any specific recitation of claim 1
which was not disclosed by Goldenberg ‘647. The Hansen and
Goldenberg ‘544 references appear to have been cited only to meet
the limitations
of certain dependent claims as indicated above. Thus, the
rejection of claim 1, as written, suggests that Goldenberg ‘647
fully meets the invention, which of course, would support a
rejection on obviousness as well.
Appellant’s main argument throughout has been that claim
1 is directed to the enhanced imaging of cells or tissues which
may have no pathology associated therewith whereas the applied
prior art is all directed to the enhanced imaging of tumorous
cells and tissues. Appellant argues that the types of “healthy”
tissues recited in claim 1 cannot be imaged by the methods
described in the applied prior art. The examiner has taken the
position that the imaging carried out by the applied prior art
inherently involves observing normal as well as abnormal cells
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007