Appeal No. 97-2486
Application No. 08/308,983
column 11, lines 46-49; column 12, lines 34-42; column 14,
lines 2-19). In the embodiment of Fig. 4, Eggers utilizes a
clevis 72, 73 to couple the end effectors 18, 19 to the
actuator 16, 12, 13 of the endoscopic surgical instrument 10.
Thus, Eggers teaches all the limitations of claim 17 as
broadly set forth except for the particular die casting
procedure which is employed (i.e., "investment" casting).
With respect to this limitation, Eggers simply refers
generically to "die casting," leaving to the artisan to select
from well known die casting procedures (e.g., investment
casting) the particular die casting procedure to be employed.
By referring to the "investment casting industry" (column 1,
lines 11 and 12), Horton provides evidence that investment
casting is a well known die casting procedure. In making the
selection of the particular kind of die casting procedure to
be employed from various well known die casting procedures,
the artisan would have been well aware of the respective
advantages and disadvantages of each. See, e.g., In re
Heinrich, 268 F.2d 753, 756, 122 USPQ 388, 390 (CCPA 1959).
Moreover, Horton (1) provides a suggestion that investment
casting be used where "precision" casting (i.e., casting to
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007