Appeal 2006-3381
Application 10/162,317
1. Brackett teaches the slide cassette for a tissue specimen and
method basically as claimed, with a fluid being applied between
the flexible film window and cover slip. Examiner asserts that
Focht teaches a fluid port in a similar slide unit, but for live
cells and states “[i]t would have been obvious to the ordinarily
skilled artisan at the time of the invention to include such
means in Brackett’s device in order to allow the insertion of
various types of fluids into the specimen-containing cavity.”
We concur with regard to claims 25 and 40.
2. Appellants argue that “…Brackett does not described [sic] any
insertable fluid, and Focht fails to mention the index of
refraction of its fluid.” We agree that the prior art does not
sufficiently render Claim 50 obvious, as the index of refraction
is not taught as being that of the tissue sample, and we reverse
the rejection of that claim.
D. With regard to the rejection of claims 34, 35, 37, 45, 47, 51, 52, 58,
59, and 64 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for being obvious over Brackett in view
of Stein:
1. We find that Stein teaches the use of a confocal microscope
with a rotating holder for microscope slides. The Examiner
asserts that it would be obvious to use a confocal microscope as
disclosed by Stein with the slide-cassette of Brackett, instead of
a conventional microscope disclosed by Brackett, as claimed in
the noted claims. Appellants repeat the arguments above for
claims 23, 33 and 58. We find the substitution of microscopes
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013