Wang relies on attorney argument alone to conclude that the '932
disclosure is not enabled. Note that argument of counsel cannot
take the place of evidence lacking in the record. Estee Lauder
Inc. v. L'Oreal, S.A., 129 F.3d 588, 595, 44 USPQ2d 1G10, 1615
(Fed. Cir. 1997).
Wang argues that the Jensen 1956 patent does not disclose a
method for operating a surgical robotic system for performing a
surgical procedure as recited in the preamble of Wang claim 9
(Paper 54 at 9).* Wang provides no further explanation. Wang has
failed to sufficiently rebut Green's argument that Jensen '956
does describe a robotic surgical system for performing a surgical
procedure on a patient. As pointed out by Green, the '956
disclosure states that the "invention relates to surgical
manipulators and more particularly to robotically-assisted
apparatus for use in surgery." (Green Ex. 1079, col. 1, lines 4
5). The disclosure further states that the system "is part of an
electromechanical device that can be coupled to a controller
mechanism to form a telerobotic system for operating the surgical
instrument by remote control." (Green Ex. 1079, col. 1, lines
64-67). Wang fails toldiscuss in any meaningful way why the
passages that Green dilýects Wang to are inaccurate or do not meet
the preamble of Wang claim 9. Accordingly, Wang's argument is
not persuasive.
For the reasons stated above, Green preliminary motion 5 is
granted. Wang claims 7 and 12 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
- 13 -
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007