Appeal 2006-3381
Application 10/162,317
1. With regard to claims 36 and 44, Examiner has stated that the
substitution of one of optical coherence tomography and two-
photon microscopy for the general purpose microscope taught
by Brackett would have been obvious at the time of the
invention. In the Specification, page 16, Appellants have
indicated that these techniques are well described in the prior
art. The claimed invention relates to a slide cassette usable with
any type of microscope, as the cassette is a separate entity. We
affirm the Examiner on these claims.
2. With regard to claims 42 and 43, the claims recite “locating a
fluid in said cavity having an index of refraction substantially
matching that of the tissue specimen.” We do not find a
teaching in the cited art, or any other documented support, for
such a fluid as claimed. Examiner’s rejection is reversed for
these claims.
3. With regard to claim 44, the limitation of “providing indicia
identifying said tissue specimen” is at least rendered obvious, if
not anticipated, by the card 20 in Brackett. As Appellants
mention in the (Br. 9), that card can provide identifying indicia
identifying the tissue specimen, as it is taught in Brackett as
being imprinted (col. 3, line 47).
C. With regard to the rejection of claims 25, 40 and 50 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) for being obvious over Brackett in view of Focht:
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013