Appeal No. 2006-2638
Application No. 10/095,616
We do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, nor of the claims depending from
claim 1 (2-11 and 37), because the rejection relies on the finding that Upton discloses a
first transponder/tranceiver that is affixed to the endoscope. For the reasons supra that
we do not find Upton to anticipate instant claim 26, we do not sustain the rejection of
claim 1. Moreover, as appellants note, Upton teaches electrical isolation of camera
control unit 1 (and power supply 12; Fig. 6) from endoscope 7 by virtue of a wireless
connection between control unit 1 and camera head 3, and thus cannot teach affixing a
camera control unit (containing a transponder/transceiver) to an endoscope. Further,
we do not sustain the rejection of claims 29 and 32-36, depending from claim 26,
because the references do not remedy the deficiencies in the rejection applied against
the base claim.
With respect to claim 24, the examiner seems to acknowledge that the claim
requires an endoscope having a memory device. (Brief at 11; Answer at 14.) The
rejection relies on sample and hold circuitry 16 (col. 9, ll. 10-20; Fig. 6) of Upton, which
is contained within camera control unit 1. Camera control unit 1 is electrically isolated
from camera head 3, via a wireless connection, and thus physically separate from the
endoscope attached to the camera head. We thus agree with appellants to the extent
there was no suggestion from the prior art for the combination proposed by the
rejection. We do not sustain the rejection of claim 24, nor of claim 25 depending from
24.
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007