Appeal No. 98-0194 Page 19
Application No. 08/132,940
motivation found in the cited references to make the
combination. We do not agree. It is our opinion that
Ensslin's teaching that it is particularly important for the
surgical team to monitor the total energy dispensed into the
patient's body during the entire procedure from start to finish
provides the motivation to the person of ordinary skill in this
art to provide electrosurgical devices such as Bowers with a
system from which accurate determinations of energy dispensed
into a patient can be derived so that the electrosurgical
devices can be automatically shut down when the amount of
energy dispensed equals a predetermined energy setting. Third,
we agree with the appellant's technical background (brief, pp.
10-11) that power and energy are different and that one skilled
in the art would not substitute Ensslin's energy regulation for
Bowers' power regulation. However, for the reasons set forth
above, we believe it would have been obvious to add Ensslin's
energy regulation to Bowers' power regulation to gain the self
evident advantages thereof. Lastly, the appellant argues
(brief, p. 20) that applied prior art does not suggest the
added elements of claim 13. We do not agree. As pointed
above, it is our determination that the only element added by
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007