Appeal 2006-1914
Application 09/764,609
1 Nor are we persuaded by Appellants' contention (Br. 5) that in Acker,
2 the system is a variant of a well known magnetic system, and that Acker's
3 system does not transmit data. We find from fact 29 that the wireless system
4 may be "radio, infrared, or other wireless telemetry." Thus, we find that
5 Acker describes a range of different types of wireless systems that may be
6 used for the wireless connection. We find no evidence to support a position
7 that the range of wireless systems of Acker would not be able to transmit the
8 data required by Chader's system.
9 In addition, we note from facts 30, 32, and 35 that each of the
10 Declarations assert that the application has been rejected in view of a patent
11 that discloses a wired or tethered instrument communicating with a surgical
12 navigation system. We do not consider this statement, found in each of the
13 Declarations, to accurately describe the rejections, because the first rejection
14 was based on Chader in view of knowledge in the art of wired and wireless
15 systems, and because the second rejection is based on Chader in view of
16 Acker, where Acker describes surgical navigation system having either a
17 wired or wireless connection between the instrument and the remainder of
18 the system.
19 Nor are we persuaded by Appellants' contention (Reply Br. 3) that
20 The Lack Of Any Suggestion of a Wireless Data
21 Communication Link Between the Smart Instrument and the
22 Computer System in Chader et al. is Evidence that Such
23 Wireless Data Communication Was Not Considered an
24 Obvious Alternative to the Hard Wired Data
25 Communication System Disclosed Therein.
26 (Emphasis original.)
27
22
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013