Appeal No. 2001-2201
Application .09/065, 997
baffle is inherently adjustable in all dimensions relative to the
pinhole for alignment. See Appeal Brief, page 7, lines 3 through
12.
Upon review of the prior art, we sustain the rejection of
claim 5. First, the Examiner cites Figure 1 (Appellant’s
admitted prior art) to disclose all the limitations recited in
claim 1, except for the inclusion of the baffle. See Examiner’s
Answer, page 3, line 17 through page 4, line 1. Kino and Tanaami
are then cited to provide a motivation for placing a baffle in a
confocal microscope behind the pinhole. The Examiner has only
relied on Kino and Tanaami for the general teaching of placing a
baffle between the pinhole and a detector in order to avoid stray
light from reaching the detector. See Examiner’s Answer, page 4,
lines 3 through 6. There is no discussion of relying on
Appellant’s admitted prior art, Kino or Tanaami to teach any
additional structure. Thus, the resulting structure, based on
the teachings of Kino or Tanaami, corresponds to that shown in
Figure 2C of Appellant’s specification. This proposed structural
combination is our focus when determining whether the Examiner
has established a prima facie case of obviousness.
Second, it is not required that the Examiner show that the
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007