is described as the surgical instrument itself. Thus, we did not
ignore the other embodiments, but rather looked for where Green
possibly has support for the claimed term of an end effector for
holding the surgical instrument. The logical place to look is
with respect to the embodiments that describe surgery and use of
a surgical instrument. Even so, the entire specification
(including the drawings) was reviewed for support for the claimed
term.
Green argues that it is confused as to what the panel
considers is the "common meaning" of the term end effector as
discussed in our decision. The "common meaning" was provided by
Green, through the Green's expert Dr. Salisbury, as clearly
provided in our decision (Paper 76 at 13-15, "Green has not used
the term "end effector" according to its common meaning as
pointed out by Dr. Salisbury.").
Lastly, Green argues that it should have an opportunity to
address the facts and legal issues presented to it for the first
time in our decision (Paper 79 at 28-29). Green argues that it
should have an opportunity to file new supporting evidence, and
new preliminary motionq. As stated above, Wang's preliminary
motion 1 raised the issue of written description support with
respect to the term of an end effector for holding a surgical
instrument. Green responded, by providing evidence and arguments
addressing why Green did have written description support for an
- 11 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007