Appeal No. 95-3598
Application 08/125,671
claims merely conveys that the attached instruments remain
attached to the laparoscopic robotic hand irrespective of
motions of the fingers. From our perspective, the clear import
of the claim language in claims 1 and 11 on appeal is that the
cauterization means and the fluid transfer means are connected to
the distal end portion of the instrument "independently of
motions of said fingers in response to said actuator means,"
i.e., that the fingers may be moved by the actuator means without
the cauterization means and the fluid transfer means being moved
at the same time. This is clearly not what the originally filed
disclosure of appellants' application would have conveyed to one
of ordinary skill in the art.
In accordance with the foregoing, we will sustain the
examiner's rejection of independent claims 1 and 11, and of the
claims which depend therefrom (i.e., claims 4, 7 through 10 and
12 through 17) under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, based on
the lack of a written description supporting the invention as
now claimed.
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007