Appeal No. 2006-2751
Application No. 10/205,090
Miura in view of Jörgens and Weetall.
Reference is made to the briefs and the answer for the respective positions of the
appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us, and we will sustain the
obviousness rejections of claims 1 through 12 and 14 through 26.
Appellants argue throughout the briefs that a common operating console for
independently and concurrently performing both the microscope and the micromanipulator
functions is not taught by either Miura or Jörgens.
We disagree with appellants’ arguments. The manipulating panel/console 48 in Miura
contains joysticks 10 and 11 that control the micromanipulators 4 and 5, respectively, and a
keyboard key group 33 that controls a driver mechanism for moving the objective lenses (Figure
1; column 8, lines 45 through 50 and 63 through 67; column 13, lines 55 through 65 and column
14, lines 51 through 59). Miura explains (column 13, lines 55 through 65 and column 14, lines
51 through 59) that the objective lenses are moved vertically by a driver mechanism (not shown)
in the Z-axial direction via instructions and settings entered into a control unit 26 with the key
group 33. Thus, the obviousness rejection of claim 1 is sustained because Miura discloses a
common operating console 48 for independently and concurrently performing both a microscope
function (i.e., moving the objective lenses) and a micromanipulator function as set forth in claim
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007