Appeal 2006-1914
Application 09/764,609
1 We turn next to the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
2 as being unpatentable over Chader in view of Acker. We begin with claims
3 1 and 29. At the outset, we find from fact 2 that typically, surgical
4 instruments are either tethered to the computer system or are wireless. We
5 find from fact 3 that an object of the invention of providing an image-guided
6 surgery system "is achieved by providing wireless instruments with several
7 improvements." We find from fact 4 that by storing the calibration
8 information in the instruments themselves the image-guided system of the
9 invention is capable of re-calibrating damaged or imperfect instruments
10 without going through a complex field calibration process." We find from
11 facts 6 and 7 that an object of the invention is an improved control interface
12 between the user operating the instruments and the computer system. The
13 invention accomplishes this object by providing operating controls
14 integrated into the instruments. We find from fact 8 that an additional object
15 of the invention is to provide an improved image-guided surgery computer
16 cart assembly for housing the computer system. As correctly noted by
17 Appellants (Br. 4) and the Examiner (Answer 3) the Chader disclosure only
18 contemplates or discloses a smart instrument that is hard wired to the
19 computer system. However, we find from fact 24 that Acker relates to
20 medical probes having field transducers for detecting the disposition of the
21 probe. From fact 27 we find that the system of Acker determines the
22 position of an object in a frame of reference of the field transducers or
23 antennas. Thus, Acker is directed to determining the position or location of
24
17
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013