Appeal 2006-1914
Application 09/764,609
1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chader in view of
2 Acker, the issue is whether Acker would have suggested to an artisan the
3 replacement of the tethered connection of Chader with a wireless
4 connection, and whether the buttons of the prior art would have suggested
5 the activation and release buttons as claimed. The issue turns on whether the
6 evidence and arguments provided by Appellants is sufficient to overcome
7 the strength of the prima facie case of obviousness articulated by the
8 Examiner.
9 FINDINGS OF FACT
10 We find that the following enumerated findings are supported by at
11 least a preponderance of the evidence. Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d
12 1422, 1427, 7 USPQ2d 1152, 1156 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (explaining the general
13 evidentiary standard for proceedings before the Office).
14
15 1. Appellants invented a system for displaying and guiding a series of
16 instruments to a surgical site located relative to a body of a patient.
17 (Specification 1.)
18
19 2. Known frameless stereotactic systems utilize optical, RF, magnetic,
20 audio, or other signal systems to communicate between the surgical
21 instruments and the computer system. Typically, the surgical
22 instruments are either tethered to the computer system or are wireless.
23 Wireless instruments carry a system-compatible emitter or sensor for
24 communication through LEDs or RF systems to the computer system.
25 Tethered instruments can add complexity to the system by limiting the
26 range of motion of the instrument and adding additional wires and
27 cables to route and negotiate during the surgery. Range of motion of
28 the instrument is very important during the surgery itself.
29 (Specification 2.)
30
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013