Appeal No. 2006-2638
Application No. 10/095,616
Brief (filed Apr. 3, 2006) and the Reply Brief (filed Jun. 19, 2006) for appellants= position
with respect to the claims which stand rejected.
OPINION
The examiner has applied Upton against claims 26-28, 30, 31, and 38 in a
rejection for anticipation under 35 U.S.C. ' 102. Claim 26 is independent. Appellants
submit that Upton fails to describe a first transponder/transceiver that is Aaffixed to the
endoscope@ as claimed.
The examiner reads the first transponder/transceiver on Figure 2 of Upton,
whereby element 205 is the antenna connection to element 203, and element 205 is
attached to the endoscope camera control unit 1. (Answer at 3.)
As seen in Upton=s figure 2, Upton=s element 205 is the antenna
connection to element 203, and element 205 is attached or affixed to the
endoscope camera control unit 1, so there is a connection that is attached
or affixed to the endoscope. Thus, Upton teaches a first
transponder/transceiver attached to the endoscope for transmitting and
receiving first data.
(Id. at 8.) The examiner also notes that a general dictionary defines Aaffix@ as Aattach in
any way.@ (Id. at 9.)
The examiner=s allegation that Aelement 205 is attached or affixed to the
endoscope camera control unit 1, so there is a connection that is attached or affixed to
the endoscope@ is in the form of a non sequitur statement. The examiner does not
specify what the Aconnection@ may be. Appellants seem to assume, and it appears, that
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007