Appeal No. 2003-1411
Application No. 09/292,096
examiner (final rejection, page 3) that Figure 12 of Ueda is an
illustrative example of changing the orientation of the magnetic
body as claimed, and that “[t]he fact that Ueda et al. might
‘pull’ a magnet in a particular direction in certain instances
does not differentiate over the . . . limitation but actually
supports it.” The claimed “magnetic gradient” is nothing more
than a changing aligning field in Ueda (Figure 12) that pulls and
moves the endoscope in a particular direction (final rejection,
page 3). As indicated by the examiner (answer, page 7), “a
magnetic field, generated electrically or by permanent magnets,
as is done by Ueda et al. will inherently create a magnetic
gradient.” The claimed “indicia indicating an orientation of the
displayed image” reads directly on the “UP” indicia in Ueda
(Figure 46; column 26, lines 47 through 51) (paper number 9, page
4).
Appellants’ arguments (brief, pages 7 and 9) that Ueda does
not teach aligning the field or the device are without merit
because claims 2 and 4 on appeal do not recite such a limitation
(answer, page 5).
Appellants’ arguments (brief, pages 8 and 9) concerning a
“magnetic gradient to move the magnetic body” (claims 3 and 4)
have been addressed supra, and by the examiner (answer, pages 6
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007