Appeal No. 2003-1411
Application No. 09/292,096
and 7). Briefly stated, if the disclosed and claimed invention
applies a magnetic gradient to move the magnetic body, then
Ueda’s device performs the same task with a like device.
Appellants’ arguments (brief, pages 9 through 12) that Ueda
does not disclose the claimed “two mutually perpendicular
directions” (claims 6, 7, 9 and 15 through 17) is without merit
in light of the explanation offered by the examiner (answer,
pages 7 through 9) concerning joystick movement in two mutually
perpendicular directions that causes the endoscope to move in the
same two mutually perpendicular directions.
In view of the foregoing, the anticipation rejection of
claims 2 through 4, 6, 7, 9 and 15 through 17 is sustained. The
anticipation rejection of claims 11 through 14 is sustained
because appellants have not presented any patentability arguments
for these claims.
Turning next to the obviousness rejection of claim 5, this
rejection is reversed because we agree with the appellants’
argument (brief, page 12) that the applied references neither
teach nor would have suggested to the skilled artisan a
controller “on” the endoscope that is adjacent the proximal end
of the endoscope.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007