Appeal 2006-3381
Application 10/162,317
construction in Brackett. We find that Brackett does offer a
basis for that anticipation as the membranes in Brackett would
reach each other beyond the periphery of the specimen and its
adjacent mounting medium. Appellants argue that no pressure
is applied by membrane 18, but that flexible member is
described as being squeezed, to remove air and excess
mounting fluid, so the Appellants’ argument is not convincing.
The claimed “to shape…,” if given weight at all (being a
statement of purpose), is read on the flattening action of the
disclosed squeezing of a tissue specimen. Since the liquid
mounting medium 17 in Brackett is located only at and around
the centrally located specimen, we find the rest of the
“sandwich” beyond the central area anticipates the claimed
membrane reaching the “window at one or more locations.”
4. Claim 41 specifies that the specimen is obtained through Mohs
surgery. No recitation of Mohs surgery is required for
anticipation. The implied process step of how the specimen
may be acquired does not distinguish the claimed specimen
over the microscopic pathology section described by Brackett,
which is sufficient to demonstrate prima facie anticipation and
shift the burden to Appellants to demonstrate otherwise.
5. Claims 48 and 49 merely recite that the method and system
provide a macroscopic image. A macroscopic image is one
visible by the naked eye. Brackett provides that teaching.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013