Appeal 2006-2751
Application 10/205,090
obviousness rejections of claims 2 to 12 and 14 to 26 because Appellants did
not present any patentability arguments for these claims apart from the
arguments presented for claim 1.
Appellants now argue (Request 3):
The “keyboard” disclosed by Miura, which
is used to enter instructions for the microscope, is
different and separate from the “key group 33,”
which is included on manipulating panel 48. The
“keyboard” is indicated as not shown while “key
group 33” is clearly shown and labeled in Fig. 1.
The “keyboard” is nowhere disclosed to be part of
the panel 48. Thus the panel 48 of Miura does not
in fact independently and concurrently perform
both a microscope function and a manipulator
function.
Although the keyboard is not shown in Figure 7, Miura expressly
states that the “instructions and settings may be entered into the control unit
26 via the keyboard” (col. 14, ll. 56 to 59). Thus, we still maintain that it
would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to enter the same instructions
via the keyboard 33 in Figure 1 of Miura.
Appellants’ request for rehearing has been granted to the extent that
our decision has been reconsidered, but such request is denied with respect
to making any modifications to the decision.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013