Appeal No. 2006-2638
Application No. 10/095,616
We disagree with appellants (Brief at 7) that all pending claims at least require
the limitation of a first transponder/transceiver attached to the endoscope for
transmitting and receiving data. Instant (independent) claim 18 is drawn to an
endoscopic video system comprised of a transponder-transceiver affixed to a camera
head and a camera control unit. The claim is silent as to what may or may not be
affixed to an endoscope. Appellants have not contested the examiner=s finding that
Upton teaches a transponder/transceiver affixed to a camera head 3 (Fig. 2). Further,
appellants= arguments regarding an improper combination of Upton and Kura (Brief at 9-
10) are based on the lack of a teaching of a transceiver affixed to the endoscope -- a
teaching that instant claim 18 does not require. We are thus not persuaded of error in
the rejection of claim 18. Dependent claims 19 through 23, not separately argued by
appellants, fall with base claim 18.
Instant claim 13 is drawn to an endoscopic video system comprising a
transponder/transceiver affixed to the endoscope and a memory device coupled to the
transponder/transceiver. Kura describes an endoscopic video system comprising a
transponder/transceiver 11 (Fig. 4) affixed to endoscope 1. Kura further describes an
endoscope information management system (including device 2; Fig. 4). The
transponder affixed to the endoscope may simply supply an identification signal (e.g.,
col. 8, ll. 20-30). In the paragraph bridging columns 14 and 15, however, Kura states
that a writable transponder may also be employed on the endoscope.
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007