For the same reasons given above, as applied to Green
preliminary motion 5 for judgment against Wang on the ground that
Wang claims 7 and 12 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by Jensen U.S. patent 5,649,956 (Jensen 1956),
Jensen 1956 is prior art to Wang.
In its preliminary motion 5, Green directs us to where in
the Jensen 1956 patent, the claimed elements are described. In
addition and in compliance with paragraph 26(d) of the Standing
Order, Green includes an (1) Appendix A of Wang claims 1, 4, 6,
and 7 with citations to Jensen 19S6 for every claimed element and
(2) Appendix B of Wang claims 9 and 12 with citations to Jensen
1956 for every claimed element (Paper 28).
The Jensen 1956 patent incorporates the disclosure of
Green's parent application 07/823,932 ('932), which is identical
to Green's involved application.
In its opposition, Wang argues that the 1932 specification
does not provide an enabling disclosure for a controller having a
handle and being in electrical communication with the robotic arm
as recited in Wang claim 1 and Wang claim 9. Wang argues that
the "932 disclosure does not provide the structure or mechanisms
including the motors ehat operate the device, and that these
essential items are described as not being shown in the '932
disclosure (Paper 54 at 4 and 9).
Wang directs us to no supporting evidence that demonstrates
experimentation would be necessary to practice the '932
- 9 -
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007