Appeal No. 1998-0823
Application 08/630,542
the prior art, would have been reasonably expected to use the
solution that is claimed by the Appellants.
On pages 10 through 19 of the Brief, Appellants argue
that the combination of Heimstadt and Muller fails to teach
the invention claimed in claim 22. Specifically, Appellants
argue that Heimstadt contains no teaching regarding the use of
cameras, and that the "image ports" of Muller are not directly
in the path of the split light beam from the objective lens.
Appellants further argue that the Examiner has engaged in
impermissible hindsight reconstruction to arrive at
Appellants' claimed invention.
With respect to claim 22, we find that Heimstadt teaches
a stereoscopic eyepiece for microscopes, including a beam
divider (p , p ) in close proximity to the projected image of1 2
the rear aperture of the objective lens (o) and in the path of
a light beam passing through the objective lens; the beam
divider producing two separate beams including light from
different areas
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007