directly controlling the end effectors 40R and 40L. (Green
Ex. 1080 at 11, lines 14-26).
Wang has failed to sufficiently demonstrate that one of
ordinary skill in the art would not understand the above to mean
that embodiments are described wherein the movements made at the
controller would necessarily be different from the movements of
the arm and thus the surgical instrument. In the small worksite
embodiment, movement made at the worksite would necessarily be a
smaller movement than that made by the operator at the
controller. Indeed, Green's '932 disclosure further describes:
Servomechanism scaling of axial movement of the telescopic
control arms is provided such that axial extension or
retraction thereof results in a smaller extension or
retraction of the telescopic insertion sections (Green Ex.
1080, page 16, lines 2-6).
The above descriptions support, for example, a movement of
the arm and surgical instrument proportional to that of the
controller. That is, '932 describes scaling of axial movement of
the insertion arm (and thus the instrument) such that it is
different than the movement of the controller.
Wang fails to sufficiently demonstrate otherwise. Wang has
failed to direct us to supporting evidence in the way of a
declaration or affidavit from one having ordinary skill in the
art that demonstrates that 1932 fails to convey to that person
that the disclosure describes the features recited in Wang claim
1. Wang relies solely on attorney argument.
- 11 -
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007