Appeal No. 1997-1430
Application No. 08/225,756
probe. We find this contention to be without merit. Betzig
has a clear teaching of using the disclosed probe as a NSOM
(near-field scanning optical microscopy) probe as well as a
shear-force probe (Betzig, column 4, lines 41-45; column 6,
lines 8-10). Further, Betzig discloses the formation of an
optical aperture in the probe tip (columns 6, lines 24-37) as
well as various illumination geometries for NSOM imaging as
discussed at column 7, lines 28-45 of Betzig, all of which
encompass the functioning of Betzig’s probe tip as a light
probe. In our view, the combination resulting from the
Examiner’s proposed substitution of Betzig’s hook-shaped probe
for that of Fujihira would meet all of the claimed
requirements. Since the Examiner’s prima facie case of the
obviousness of this proposed combination remains unrebutted by
any convincing arguments by Appellants, the Examiner’s
35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of independent claims 14, 21, and 28
is sustained.4
4The Barrett reference relied on by the Examiner solely
to address the vertical vibrating feature limitations of
dependent claims 15, 22, and 29 is cumulative to that of
Fujihira and Betzig with respect to independent claims 14, 21,
and 28 which contain no such limitations. In affirming a
multiple reference rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Board
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007