Appeal No. 2001-1956
Application 08/923,424
pages 4-5) the examiner asserts (id. at page 4) that "[t]he only
feature missing from the prior art is that it does not teach that
one of the prisms used to form each set of the birefringent
members is an isotropic prism consisting of an isotropic material
for the purpose of reducing the optical path of the light beam
passing through the prisms, improving the quality of image formed
and reducing the manufacture cost." The examiner finds that
DeVeer in Figure 11 teaches a birefringent optical member
consisting of a glass wedge-shaped prism cemented to a
birefringent wedge-shaped prism. The examiner contends (final
rejection at page 5) that "[t]hus, it would have been
obvious...to modify the differential interference microscope as
provided by the prior art by using a birefringent member
consisting of a glass (or isotropic) wedge-shaped prism cemented
to a birefringent wedge-shaped prism as suggested by DeVeer for
the purpose of reducing the optical path of light passing through
the birefringent member, improving the image quality, and
reducing the manufacture cost." Appellants argue (brief at page
14 and reply brief at pages 3 to 5) that there is no teaching in
DeVeer or in the admitted prior art to combine the teaching of
the two references.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007