Appeal 2006-1914
Application 09/764,609
1 communications. In addition, the wireless system will only operate when
2 the wireless instrument is within a field of detection because this is how
3 wireless systems operate. For example, if a television has a wireless remote
4 control, it will only operate within a set range, as will a cordless phone that
5 will operate from within a prescribed radius of the base unit.
6 Nor are we persuaded by Appellants' contention (Br. 6) that Acker
7 only transmits the location of the sending unit and does not transmit data
8 relative to the configuration of the magnetic devices of Acker to the sending
9 unit. Appellants add that "[t]his is sending position or location information
10 in a wireless manner and not the sending of data and instructions as in the
11 present invention." From fact 20, we agree with the Examiner that Chader
12 describes the controller 48 performing a variety of functions, such as
13 controlling the acquisition of data. For example, button 46 may be
14 depressed to obtain a specific coordinate at the point where the button is
15 depressed. As an alternative, the instrument may be placed over a portion of
16 a patient and the button is depressed to produce an image. From this
17 description in Acker of providing a coordinate or an image, we find that
18 Acker describes more that sending data indicating a location or position.
19 Note that the providing of an image of a portion of a patient and displaying
20 the image on the screen is the sending of data.
21 Nor are we persuaded by Appellants contention (Br. 4) that obvious to
22 try is not the appropriate test of obviousness. Appellants are correct that
23 there needs to be a reasonable expectation of success to support the
24 combination of references. However, as stated in by the court in KSR, 127
25 S.Ct. at 1742, "[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a
20
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013