disclosure, let alone that such experimentation would be undue.
That the motors for operating the arm and controller are not
shown, does not by itself demonstrate that one skilled in the art
would not be able to practice the claimed invention.
Wang further argues that the 1932 disclosure fails to
disclose that the "movement at the controller produces a
proportional movement of the robotic arm and surgical instrument"
of Wang claim 1. Wang argues that the limitation requires
scaling the movement at the controller so that the robotic arm
and surgical instrument have a movement that is different (Paper
54 at 5). Wang claim 1 does not require scaling the movement.
In any event, Wang has failed to sufficiently demonstrate that
the Green '932 disclosure does not describe a "scaling" feature.
Wang argues that the '932 disclosure describes changing the
work site dimensions, but does not describe scaling the movement
at the controller so that the robotic arm and surgical instrument
have a movement that is different. Wang directs us to the
portion of Green's '932 disclosure that state:
Any scale factor may be employed, the invention not
being limited to full-scale manipulation. For example, the
.worksite can be small, including microscopic in size, in
which case the optical parameters, including distance to
object, interocul'&r distance and focal length, and
mechanical and dimensional parameters are appropriately
scaled.
By using appropriate scaling and image magnification
and force and torque feedback, and by locating the image 30V
of the workspace 30 adjacent hand-operated control means 76R
and 76L, the operator is provided with a strong sense of
- 10 -
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007