Appeal No. 95-3598
Application 08/125,671
416 U.S. 935 (1974); In re Eynde, 480 F.2d 1364, 1370, 178 USPQ
470, 474 (CCPA 1973).
In the case before us, we believe the examiner has not
met his burden of advancing acceptable reasons inconsistent with
enablement. While we appreciate the examiner's discomfiture over
the somewhat schematic illustration of the invention in
appellants' drawings, the lack of specific disclosure concerning
exactly how the fingers are attached to the distal end portion of
each of the laparoscopic instruments, exactly how the fingers
are articulated in a working manner, and the paucity of details
concerning how a device of the small proportions required for
introduction through a laparoscopic trocar sleeve might be
fabricated and operatively attached to the various required
linkages and control mechanisms, we nonetheless do not find that
these issues individually or collectively rise to the level of
non-enablement.
It is our opinion that the level of skill in this art
(i.e, the art of micro-robotics) is sufficiently high that the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007