Appeal 2006-1914
Application 09/764,609
1 that the Declarations3 provide evidence that shows the difficulties created by
2 the prior Chader type devices in a surgical setting and the unobvious benefits
3 of the devices as claimed in claim 1. Although page 2 of each of the
4 Klarsfeld, Nogler, and Kassam Declarations describe problems associated
5 with tethered surgical instruments, Acker specifically recognizes (fact 29)
6 that a wireless system avoids the physical encumbrance of loose wires
7 trailing from the instrument. From this description in Acker, we find that the
8 prior art recognizes problems with having tethered surgical instruments, and
9 suggests replacing a tethered connection with a wireless connection. As to
10 Appellants' assertion regarding the unobvious benefits of the device set forth
11 in claim 1, we note from fact 3 that the object of providing an image-guided
12 surgical system is achieved by providing wireless instruments with several
13 improvements. We find from facts 4-8 that these improvements relate to
14 storing calibration information in the instruments, providing operating
15 controls integrated into the instruments, and providing an improved surgery
16 cart assembly. However, from our review of claim 1, we fail to find these
17 features in the claim. As broadly drafted, the claim is met by the combined
18 teachings and suggestions of Chader and Acker because, as correctly
19 advanced by the Examiner in the Answer, upon making the system of
20 Chader wireless, the bidirectional communications already present in the
21 tethered system of Chader will continue to be wireless bi-directional
22
3 Although Appellants refer to two Declarations being submitted, we note
that the record reflects three declarations being filed, e.g., the Kassam,
Klarsfeld, and Nogler Declarations.
19
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013