Appeal No. 2003-1411
Application No. 09/292,096
previously recited in claims 2 and 4. Appellants argue (brief,
pages 6 and 7) that the term “display” is “an unmistakable
reference to the display on the display component,” and that
“[t]here is nothing unclear or ambiguous to a person of ordinary
skill in the art.” We agree with the appellants’ arguments.
When the term “display” is considered in light of the disclosure,
and the context in which it is used in the claims, it is
perfectly clear what the appellants are seeking to claim.
Accordingly, the indefiniteness rejection of claims 2, 4, 7, 9
and 10 is reversed.
Turning to the anticipation rejection of claims 2 through 4,
6, 7, 9 and 11 through 17, we agree with the examiner’s findings
(paper number 9, page 4) that “Ueda et al. disclose an endoscope
(2) having a magnetic body (20), an imaging device (24, 25 or 5),
a display component (7), a magnetic field generating apparatus
(11), and a controller (45, 50, Fig. 6) . . . moved in two
mutually perpendicular directions.” With respect to the claimed
“orientation of the magnetic body,” we agree with the examiner’s
statement (final rejection, page 3) that “this is the whole
purpose of conventional magnetic guiding apparatus--to change the
orientation of the distal end of an instrument by applying a
directional magnetic field.” We additionally agree with the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007