Appeal No. 2006-2053
Application No. 10/196,109
translated to the jaws 56, 58, which are coupled to the split end of the control wire
by proximal tangs 62, 64.
The examiner’s contention on page 4 of the answer that a force is
transmitted via the movable grip 18 (movable member 24) via the shaft (control
wire 16) to the tool (jaws 56, 58) which in turn applies an equal and opposite force
via the clevis to the reciprocal force transmission element (coil 12), even if true,
does not respond to the limitation that the coil be operatively interconnected to the
at least one movable grip element and to the at least one movable tool for
transmitting a force from the movable grip element to the at least one movable tool.
The examiner is describing a force transmitted from the movable member 24 via
the control wire 16 to the jaws 56, 58 and a force transmitted via the clevis 60 to
the coil 12 and presumably to the stationary member 23. Neither of these forces is
a force transmitted from the movable grip member through the coil to the movable
tool, as called for in claim 1.
In light of the above, the rejection of claim 1 as being anticipated by Recuset
cannot be sustained. It follows that the like rejection of claims 2-5, 9 and 33
depending from claim 1 also cannot be sustained.
The examiner’s application of Chin in the rejection of the remaining
dependent claims 10-12 for its teaching of an end effector tool having first and
second members that move axially relative to each other provides no cure for the
deficiency of Recuset discussed above. The rejection of claims 10-12 as being
unpatentable over Recuset in view of Chin thus likewise cannot be sustained.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007