as required by the count. The count recites an articulate
arm having an end effector. The end effector holds a
surgical instrument. Green has not identified an element
that qualifies as an end effector of an articulate arm.
(Wang Exh. 2002, p. 5, 111 para, right side).
3. The '930 application refers to item 170 as an end
effector. (Green Exh. 1103, p. 17, 11. 15-17).
4. Green now states that item 170 is an instrument.
Which one is it? The count requires that the instrument and
end effector be two distinct elements. For how could the
end effector hold itself. If item 170 is an instrument then
where does the '930 application disclose an end effector?
If item 170 is an end effector then the specification of the
1930 application clearly does not show 170 holding a
surgical instrument.
5. Given either interpretation of item 170 the '930
specification does not disclose an end effector for holding
a surgical instrument as required by the count. (Paper 32
at 4-5).
While Wang does use the term "enablement" in the title of
the subsection, it is clear that Wang is arguing that Green's
specification lacks written description support for an end
effector for holding a surgical instrument. Throughout its
argument, Wang repeats that Green has not identified an end
effector for holding a surgical instrument and that there is an
inconsistency between explanations of the term provided by Green
during prosecution of its involved application, with Green's
annotation of claim texms in this proceeding, and with Green's
specification.
Wang, in its preliminary motion 1, points out that Green has
on occasion referred to the same item in Green's specification as
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007