Appeal No. 97-4459 Page 12
Application No. 08/421,063
with an enlarged portion providing magnified viewing of the
cell collection chamber (i.e., the interior of housing 26).
It is our opinion that the examiner's view (answer, p. 4) that
Suzuki's teaching of a transparent cover or support 16 "would
result in a relative change in magnification" is pure
conjecture without any support. Thus, the combined teachings
of Sundberg and Suzuki would not have suggested the claimed
invention. Accordingly, the decision of the examiner to
reject claims 1 through 4 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sundberg in view of
Suzuki is reversed.
Rejection based on Sundberg, Suzuki and Luther
We will not sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 1
through 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Sundberg in view of Suzuki and Luther for the following
reason.
The combined teachings of Sundberg, Suzuki and Luther
fail to teach or suggest providing Sundberg's body (i.e.,
housing 26) with an enlarged portion providing magnified
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007