Appeal No. 2007-0467 Page 7
Application No. 10/646,929
display and observed. Yamamoto, column 3, lines 32-35. The image pick-up
apparatus includes a light source which is incorporated in the image pick-up
apparatus to illuminate an object to be observed. Yamamoto, column 3, lines 47-
50. According to Yamamoto, the term “light-source . . . covers not only
incandescent lamps and fluorescent lamps but also light emitting diode and the
like.” Yamamoto, column 3, lines 64-68. Yamamoto, undoubtedly teaches a
LED light source that is integrated into the same hollow elongaged body as the
rest of the elements of the pick-up apparatus. However, as appellant points out,
Yamamoto’s pick-up apparatus is not “a microscope of the type claimed” nor
does it teach a LED “located adjacent an objective lens located in an end of an
elongated housing. . . .” In addition, we note that Yamamoto’s device appears to
be distinct from Takazawa’s slit-lamp, and Harooni’s ophthalmoscope.
Nevertheless, without more, the examiner asserts that it would have been
prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention
was made to modify the combination of Takizawa and Harooni “by rearranging
the illumination system having light emitting diodes and other optical elements
inside the elongated tube as suggested by Yamamoto et al for the purpose of
obtaining a more compact configuration for the stereomicroscope.” Answer,
bridging paragraph, pages 5-6. We disagree.
As set forth in In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1369-70, 55 USPQ2d 1313,
1316 (Fed. Cir. 2000):
A critical step in analyzing the patentability of claims pursuant to
section 103(a) is casting the mind back to the time of invention, to
consider the thinking of one of ordinary skill in the art, guided only
by the prior art references and the then-accepted wisdom in the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013