Ex Parte GARIBALDI et al - Page 2



          Appeal No. 2003-1411                                                        
          Application No. 09/292,096                                                  

               Claim 2 is illustrative of the claimed invention, and it               
          reads as follows:                                                           
               2.  A magnetically navigable endoscope system comprising:              
               an endoscope having a proximal end and a distal end, the               
          distal end having a magnetic body;                                          
               an imaging device which transmits an image, associated with            
          the distal end;                                                             
               a display component for displaying the image;                          
               a magnetic field generating apparatus for generating a                 
          magnetic field to move the magnetic body and thus the distal end            
          of the endoscope;                                                           
               a controller coordinated with the display for controlling              
          the magnetic field generating apparatus to apply a magnetic field           
          to change the position of the magnetic body and thus the position           
          of the distal end of the endoscope, the controller controlling              
          the magnetic field generating apparatus to apply a magnetic field           
          of a specific direction to change the orientation of the magnetic           
          body and thus the orientation of the distal end of the endoscope.           
               The references relied on by the examiner are:                          
          Hibino et al. (Hibino)        5,060,632           Oct. 29, 1991             
          Ueda et al. (Ueda)            5,681,260           Oct. 28, 1997             
          Koninckx                      5,899,851      May   4, 1999                  
                                                  (filed Apr. 18, 1996)               
               Claims 2, 4, 7, 9 and 10 stand rejected under the second               
          paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 as being indefinite for failing to             
          particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter              
          which appellants regard as the invention.                                   


                                          2                                           




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007