Appeal No. 2007-0467 Page 9
Application No. 10/646,929
On reflection, we find that the examiner failed to provide the evidence
necessary to support a prima facie case of obviousness. Accordingly, we
reverse the rejection of claims 12 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Takizawa, Yamamoto and Harooni.
Answer, page 6.
The combination of Takizawa, Yamamoto, Harooni and Fogle:
Claims 22 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Takizawa, Yamamoto, and Harooni and
Fogle. The examiner relies on the combination of Takizawa, Yamamoto, and
Harooni as discussed above. The examiner finds, however, that the combination
of Takizawa, Yamamoto, and Harooni fails to teach a microscope wherein the
two oculars, prism assemblies and lens magnification changer are mounted on a
base section of an internal mount located within the hollow elongated body. Id.
To make up for this deficiency in the combination of Takizawa, Yamamoto, and
Harooni, the examiner relies on Fogle to teach “a mount supporting a plurality of
optical elements which mount is located inside an open[ing]. . . .” Id.
Based on this evidence the examiner finds that it would have been prima
facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of
Takizawa, Yamamoto, and Harooni “by mounting optical elements on a mounting
section and then dispose[ ] the mounting section inside an open[ing] defined by
shells fastened together as suggested by Fogle for the purpose of proving an
easier way to install and remove the optical elements.”
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013