Appeal No. 2004-0278 Page 4
Application No. 09/626,362
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is
found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.
Verdegaal Bros. Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed.
Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 827 (1987).
The anticipation based on Mizuno
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 6 to 11 and 15 to 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a) as being anticipated by Mizuno.
Mizuno provides a surgical manipulator system which comprises a manipulator
and a remote-control device for controlling the manipulator and in which the manipulator
can be moved in a desired direction, not restricted by the positional relation between it
and the remote-control device. Figure 11 is a schematic representation of one
embodiment of the surgical manipulator system. As shown, the system comprises a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007