Appeal No. 2006-2053
Application No. 10/196,109
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. For the reasons
that follow, we cannot sustain either of the examiner’s rejections.
Appellants’ independent claim 1 requires a reciprocal force transmission
element, configured as a helical spring, having its proximal end operatively
interconnected to the at least one movable grip element and its distal end
operatively interconnected to the at least one movable tool for transmitting a force
from the at least one movable grip element1 to the at least one movable tool. The
proximal end of Recuset’s coil 12 is engaged in the distal end of the throughbore of
the stationary member 23 of actuation handle 18 and is not operatively
interconnected with the movable member 24 of the handle 18. Furthermore, while
the distal end of Recuset’s coil is coupled to the clevis 60 to which the jaws 56, 58
of the end effector are pivotably attached by a clevis pin passing through the
transverse bore 70 in each jaw 56, 58, the coil 12 does not transmit any force from
the movable member 24 of the handle to either of the movable jaws 56, 58 or to the
clevis. Rather, it is the control wire 16, which passes through the lumen formed
within the coil 12, that transmits force from the movable member to the movable
jaws 56, 58 of the end effector 20. Specifically, the control wire 16 is secured
within the axial bore 42 of the rack member 36 and is moved translationally along
with the rack member 36 upon pivoting of movable member 24 with respect to the
stationary member 23. The pulling movement/force of the control wire 16 is
1 The term “grip” in claim 1 (last occurrence, penultimate para.) should be followed by “element” for consistency
with earlier recitations of that element in the claim.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007