Appeal No. 2003-0508 Page 4
Application No. 09/449,023
Claims 1 and 3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Colvin in view of Gertel. Claim 12
stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Colvin in view of Gertel and Young. Claims 5-7, 14-18 and
20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Colvin in view of Gertel and Hunter.
We refer to the briefs and the answer for a complete
exposition of the opposing viewpoints of appellants and the
examiner.
OPINION
We reverse all of the aforementioned rejections. Our
reasoning follows.
Appealed method claim 12 requires the use of at least one
piston driven rod coupled to a video optical microscope for
vibration damping. All of the appealed apparatus claims require
a plurality of piston driven rods coupled to a video optical
microscope as part of the claimed vibration damping structure.
Colvin discloses a vibration reducing apparatus for use with
a video optical microscope. Colvin teaches the use of
cylindrical vibration stabilizer structures as depicted in
drawing figures 4A through 4C and an alternative stabilizer
structure (600, fig. 6) employing a leg for reducing vibrations
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007