Appeal No. 1998-0823
Application 08/630,542
away from one of the cameras and into the other. Therefore,
we will not sustain the rejection of claim 24 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
Turning now to Appellants' claims 30 and 35, we note that
independent claim 30 contains limitations similar to those
expressed in independent claim 22, as well as some further
limitations. Most notably, claim 30 contains language similar
to that found in claim 24, i.e., "a beam deflector selectably
positionable into the path of the light beam from the object
to be viewed before it is divided by said beam divider and
operative to deflect the light from the object to be viewed
into only one of said camera ports." As noted supra, we fail
to find any suggestion in the art cited by the Examiner to
selectably divert the light supplied to the two eyepieces or
camera ports of a stereoscopic microscope to only one of said
eyepieces or camera ports. Thus, we will not sustain the
rejection of claims 30 and 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the Examiner
rejecting claims 22, 28, and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
15
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007