Appeal 2006-3381
Application 10/162,317
“[t]he terms used in the claims bear a ‘heavy presumption’ that they mean
what they say and have the ordinary meaning that would be attributed to
those words by persons skilled in the relevant art.” Texas Digital Sys., Inc v.
Telegenix, Inc., 308 F.3d 1193, 1202, 64 USPQ2d 1812, 1817 (Fed. Cir.
2002).
ANALYSIS
In view of the discussion above, we find that the Brackett reference,
alone or in combination with Focht and Stein as expressed by the Examiner,
teaches a method, system, and device as claimed in all the claims except
claims 42, 43 and 50. With regard to those claims, the step of locating a
fluid in the cavity with an index of refraction substantially matching that of
the tissue specimen has not been demonstrated to be in the prior art as
claimed. Similarly, introducing a fluid which corrects for optical distortion
due to the surface texture of the specimen has not been demonstrated. These
claims are not rendered obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) by the references.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
Based on the findings of facts and analysis above, we conclude that
the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 42, 43, and 50. The rejections of
these claims under the statutes as expressed by the Examiner are reversed.
The rejections of all the other claims, 23, 25, 26, 33 to 37, 40, 41, 44 to 49,
and 51 to 64 are affirmed.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013