Appeal No. 95-3598
Application 08/125,671
is necessary to ascertain whether the prior art teachings would
appear to be sufficient to one of ordinary skill in the art to
suggest making the claimed substitution or other modification.")
Absent reliance on appellants' own disclosure, our
review of the Fisher publication applied by the examiner reveals
no teaching, suggestion, or incentive which would have led one of
ordinary skill in the art to modify the robotic surgical device
seen on page 6 of the Fisher publication, or only the arms and
hands of such a robotic device, so as to provide a laparoscopic
instrument having a distal end insertable through a laparoscopic
trocar sleeve into an abdominal cavity of a patient, as is
required in appellants' independent claims 1 and 11 on appeal.
With regard to appellants' method claim 18, we find nothing in
the Fisher publication that relates in any way whatsoever to a
laparoscopic surgical method comprising, inter alia, the steps of
providing a laparoscopic instrument having a distal end portion
including a plurality of at least partially opposable articulated
manipulating fingers, and inserting said distal end portion
through a laparoscopic trocar sleeve into an abdominal cavity of
14
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007