Appeal 2006-1914
Application 09/764,609
1 a surgical instrument. From Figs. 1 and 2 of Acker we find that sensor or
2 field transducer 30, mounted on surgical forceps 46 is connected to terminal
3 block or plug 35. In addition, we find from fact 29 that although the
4 embodiment described by Acker includes a hard wired connection between
5 the transducer mounted on the instrument and the rest of the position
6 detecting system, that Acker describes replacing the hard wired connection
7 with a radio, infrared, or other wireless telemetry link. Moreover, from fact
8 29 we additionally find that Acker recognizes that telemetry avoids the
9 physical encumbrance of loose wires trailing from the instrument. From the
10 description in Acker that the surgical instrument can either be tethered to the
11 rest of the system or connected in a wireless fashion, we hold that an artisan
12 would have been motivated to replace the tethered connection of Chader
13 with a wireless connection as expressly suggested by Acker. The motivation
14 would have been for the specifically described recognition that a wireless
15 connection would avoid the physical encumbrance of loose wires trailing
16 from the instrument.
17 We are not persuaded by Appellants' contention (Br. 4) that if a
18 wireless system were an easy expedient, Chader would have disclosed both
19 wired and wireless systems. The fact that Chader does not describe a
20 wireless system does not mean that a wireless system would not have been
21 obvious to Chader. In addition, Appellants' contention does not address
22 what the combined teachings and suggestions of Chader and Acker would
23 have suggested to an artisan. Nor do we agree with Appellants' contention
18
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013