Appeal No. 2006-1509
Application No. 10/206,191
Invention
The invention relates to a system to provide image data of an organ within a
patient undergoing a surgical intervention. See page 2 of appellants’ specification. Claim
1 is representative of the invention and reproduced below:
1. Operating system for carrying out surgical interventions on a patient (1),
comprising:
a storage device (4) for storing image data of an organ of a patient (1) that is
invisible from outside; a surgical instrument (2) for carrying out the surgical intervention;
a position sensor (6), fitted on the surgical instrument ( 2 ) , for detecting a spatial
position of the surgical instrument (2) ; and
a processing device (5)
i) for calculating a spatial relationship between a position of the surgical
instrument (2) located outside the body and the organ, which is represented by the image
data, and ii) for repeatedly inserting a region of the image data that accurately correspond
to the surroundings of the surgical instrument (2) into a display device ( 8 ) , the image
data being adjustedly inserted to always assure that a center of a displayed image
corresponds to an accurate current position of the surgical instrument (2) with reference
to the organ of the patient (1) as the surgical instrument is repeatedly repositioned outside
the body, so that as the instrument is moved the image data is positioned so that the
instrument remains at the center of the display device.
Rejection at Issue
Claims 1, 3 through 7, and 9 through 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112 first
paragraph as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Throughout the
opinion we make reference to the briefs, the answer and the final Office action for the
respective details thereof.
Opinion
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal and the rejection
advanced by the examiner. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into consideration, in
reaching our decision, appellants’ arguments set forth in the briefs along with the
examiner’s rationale in support of the rejection and arguments in rebuttal set forth in the
examiner’s answer.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007