Ex Parte GREEN - Page 9





                  Note, that expert testimony which contradicts the                 
             meaning of a term as is defined in the specification is                
             entitled to little weight. Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic             
             Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1585, 39 USPQ2d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir.              
             1996). An inventors' definition and explanation of a claim             
             term, as evidenced by the specification, controls the                  
             interpretation of that claim term. Serrano v. Telular                  
             Corp., Ill F.3d 1578, 1582, 42 USPQ2d 1538, 1541 (Fed. Cir.            
             1997). Here, the '930 specification defines the term "end              
             effector" to mean a surgical instrument, and as used, the              
             end effector does not hold a surgical instrument. [FN                  
             omitted]. The '930 specification does not describe the "end            
             effector" as a part located along a kinematic chain of                 
             joints and links between the robot base and the end of a               
             tool.                                                                  
                  Furthermore, Salisbury fails to sufficiently set forth            
             facts to support a conclusion that one of ordinary skill in            
             the art at the time of the Green '930 invention, would know            
             that the term "end effector" means any convenient location             
             along a kinematic chain, or alternatively that "end                    
             effector" means the end of a working tool. Salisbury makes             
             his assertions in the present tense as follows:                        
                  In robotics, the working end of the tool is often                 
                  referred to as the "end effector" ... it is also known            
                  in robotics to define some other convenient location              
                  (often a joint) along the kinematic chain as the "end             
                  effector". (Green Ex. 1014, 1 8).                                 
                  Green fails to direct us to where in Salisbury's                  
             testimony, Salisbury indicates what was known at the time              
             the '930 application was filed regarding the term "end                 
             effector". What is important is that which was known when              
             the application was filed, not what was known when Salisbury           
             testified. (Paper 76 at 13-15).                                        
             For the above reasons, we are not persuaded that (1) the               
        issue of written description support for the end effector for               
        holding a surgical instrument was not fairly raised and presented           
        to Green, or that (2) we sua sponte considered the issue on our             
        own. Wang raised the issue of written description support and               
        Green responded.                                                            


                                        9                                           







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007