Appeal No. 1998-0823
Application 08/630,542
of the objective lens rear aperture (see page 2, top of right
hand column). Heimstadt lacks cameras or "camera ports"
disposed in the path of the separate beams; but Muller
suggests the use of "photographic, motion picture or
television cameras" in the path of light split from the
original light from the objective lens rear aperture (see
Figure 3, and col. 4, lines 23-29: cameras are to be
positioned to use focus at image planes 28, 29).
We find that those skilled in the art having the
teachings of Heimstadt and Muller before them would have
placed cameras at the locations of the eyepieces of Heimstadt,
because of Muller's explicit suggestion that two cameras may
be used to photograph the magnified images of a stereo
microscope for later viewing.
Therefore, we find that it would have been obvious to one
skilled in the art in view of the teachings of Heimstadt and
Muller to position cameras (in "camera ports") disposed in the
path of two such separate light beams, as recited in claim 22.
On pages 20 to 22 of the Brief, Appellants argue that the
combination of Heimstadt, Muller, and Jakubowski fails to
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007