Appeal No. 1998-0823
Application 08/630,542
with light by means of a beam divider disposed between the
objective lens and the optical relay lenses, as recited in
claims 28 and 29.
We agree with Appellants' characterization of the
relevant case law concerning hindsight, and especially with
Appellants' contention, at page 15 of the Brief, that
"hindsight reconstruction is improper when the suggestion for
the combination cannot be shown to have come from the
references themselves, as opposed to Appellant [sic]
disclosure." In each of
the claims affirmed supra, however, we find, and have provided
appropriate explanation, that the suggestion for the
combinations advanced is present within the prior art
references applied.
On pages 19 and 20 of the Brief, Appellants argue that
the combination of Heimstadt, Muller, and Braymer fails to
suggest the invention recited in claim 24, because Braymer is
directed to a telescope, and because the references do not
11
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007