Appeal 2006-3381
Application 10/162,317
1. Appellants’ arguments center around the second limitation,
concerning the flexible membrane. Brackett has two flexible
membranes, “thin flexible plastic film” (col. 2, l. 60) element
12, which is placed on the substrate 14 below the specimen 15,
and “relatively thin plastic film 18 that preferably is of the same
thickness, material and size as film 12” (col. 3, ll. 8-10). Film
18 is placed above the specimen, and is used by the Examiner
to anticipate membrane 26 of the claimed invention.
2. We find that the film 18 of Brackett is placed “over at least a
substantial portion of said base member including said
window”.
3. We find in Brackett the description, “[d]uring cover slipping,
film 18 preferably is aligned with one edge of film 12 … and
then wiped toward the opposite edge to squeeze out excess
mounting medium and prevent bubbles of air or fluid from
being trapped between the films 12, 18. This will provide a
film-specimen-film sandwich” (col. 3, l. 10-15). We note from
the drawings in Brackett that specimen 15, with liquid
mounting medium 17, is near the center of the window, with
liquid mounting medium “placed over the specimen and
adjacent areas” (col. 3, top, Fig. 5). The Examiner has stated
that the claim language “in which said membrane is sufficiently
pliable in response to pressure to be capable of being operated
upon to reach said window at one or more locations to shape
the tissue specimen upon said window” is anticipated by this
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013