I
Wang's preliminary motion.
Green argues that we sua sponte considered whether Green had
written description support for an end effector for holding a
surgical instrument under 37 CFR § 1.641(a) (Paper 79 at 12-13).
Green argues that Wang's argument, in Wang's preliminary motion
1, was clearly based on enablement and that Wang did not fairly
raise the issue of written description support, such that Green
was improperly denied a chance to respond.
As stated in our decision on preliminary motions, the issue
of written description support was clearly before us (Paper 76 at
11, "We understand Wang's argument to be based on a lack of
written description support ... Wang makes it clear, through the
context of its argument, that written description is at issue
with respect to the "end effector" limitation.").
We disagree with Green that the issue of written description
support for an end effector for holding a surgical instrument was
not fairly raised and presented by party Wang. We further
disagree that Green did not have a chance to properly respond.
Wang's argument is presented below:
A. The 1930 Specification Does Not Provide An Enabling
Disclosure For An',End Effector That Holds A Surgical
Instrument Limitation Of The Count.
2. Green has not identified an end effector that holds
a surgical instrument. In the Fourth Supplemental
Preliminary Amendment, Green stated that articulate arms
100, 142 hold surgical instruments 114, 170. There is no
statement in the Amendment that the specification of the
'930 has an end effector which holds the surgical instrument
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007