Wang additionally argues that the '932 disclosure does not
provide an enabling disclosure for pivoting the distal end of a
surgical instrument as recited in Wang claim 4, since the motors
and linkages necessary for pivotal movement are not disclosed
(Paper 54 at 8).
Wang claim 4 does not recite pivoting the distal end of a
surgical instrument. Wang claim 4 recites that the surgical
instrument comprises a base, a pivot linkage, and a distal end.
Once again, Wang is impermissibly reading limitations into its
claim. Wang claim 4 is not ambiguous. The terms need no
clarification. Wang provides no explanation as to why its claim
4 should be interpreted such as to add limitations into its
claims.
Since Wang has failed to sufficiently demonstrate that Wang
claim 4 requires pivoting the distal end of a surgical
instrument, Wang's enablement argument is not persuasive.
In any event, Wang has failed to sufficiently demonstrate
that one of ordinary skill in the art would be faced with undue
experimentation to operate the instrument about the pivot point
of the incision.
Wang's assertionEý'that the 1932 disclosure lacks mechanisms
and structures for pivotal movement are conclusory. Wang fails
to direct us to evidence that would support Wang's arguments that
the 1932 disclosure fails to provide the mechanisms that one of
ordinary skill would need to practice the claimed invention.
12 -
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007