Appeal No. 2003-0508 Page 5
Application No. 09/449,023
between a microscope and a surface supporting a chip to be viewed
via the microscope. The examiner acknowledges that Colvin does
not disclose the here claimed piston driven rod(s) as part of a
stabilizer structure.
Gertel (column 1, lines 19-35) discloses a gas spring
assembly including a piston supported within a housing for
vibration isolation of table top equipment, such as microscopes.
Gertel (column 2, lines 33-35) is concerned with forming a gas
spring assembly having reduced horizontal stiffness. As depicted
in figure 5, item 108 and discussed in the specification, the
piston supports a load placed thereon, such as a tabletop.
Based on the combined teachings of Colvin and Gertel, the
examiner urges that:
it is considered obvious that the cylindrical
members and leg portion of Colvin may be provided the
piston rod supports as taught by Gertel for the support
and anti-vibration of the microscopic equipment.
We do not agree with the examiner’s obviousness position.
As explained by appellants in the brief (see, e.g., page 7),
the examiner has not established why one of ordinary skill in
the art would have been led to combine the disparate disclosure
of Gertel with Colvin in a manner so as to arrive at the claimed
subject test apparatus or method. In this regard, the examiner
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007