Green next argues that we construed "end effector" too
narrowly in light of Green's full disclosure (Paper 79 at 23).
At the outset, Green argues that we improperly shifted roles by
looking into Green's specification on our own without being
directed to certain passages by Wang. As stated above, Wang has
a negative burden of demonstrating that something isn't so. That
Wang did. That we "on our own" verified the truth of the
assertions does not mean that Wang failed to meet its burden.
Green argues that we failed to look at Green's entire
specification in making our decision, since we ignored non
surgical embodiments when interpreting the term "end effector"
(Paper 79 at 25). Green's entire disclosure was considered in
rendering our decision. Green claim 144 recites "A system for
allowing a surgeon to control a surgical instrument ... an
articulate arm having an end effector for holding the suraical
instrument..." The challenge mounted by Wang was that Green
failed to provide written description support for an end effector
for holding the surgical instrument. In this respect, Green's
specification was reviewed for a description (including all
drawings) that describedan end effector for holding the surgical
instrument. As we stated in our decision, in the context of
surgery, e.g. using a surgical instrument, Green's specification
describes the end effector as the surgical instrument. The end
effector is not for holding the surgical instrument, but rather
- 10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007