Appeal No. 1998-0823
Application 08/630,542
teach the invention of claims 28 and 29 because of the alleged
failings of the Heimstadt and Muller references with regard to
claim 22,
from which claims 28 and 29 depend. Appellants assert that
"[t]he problems involved in taking quality 2-D and 3-D
photographs of specimens through a high power microscope with
the best available light are nowhere present and, therefore
not surprisingly, unaddressed in Jakubowski." We note that
the terms "3-D photographs," "high power microscope," and
"best available light" do not appear in claims 22, 28, or 29.
With respect to claims 28 and 29, we find that Heimstadt
in combination with Muller teaches the claim limitations noted
supra, contained in parent claim 22. Neither Heimstadt nor
Muller teaches a third camera port disposed in the beam path
from the objective lens, between the objective lens and the
optical relay lenses, with a beam divider operative to direct
a portion of the light beam from the objective lens to the
third camera port and the rest of the light beam to the
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007