Appeal 2006-1914
Application 09/764,609
1 Appellants argue to the effect that because Chader does not suggest a
2 wireless data communications system, that the system is therefore non-
3 obvious. Appellants’ argument blurs the distinction between 102 and 103.
4 the fact that Chader does not provide a teaching or suggestion of a wireless
5 system is not dispositive of the issue of the non-obviousness of a wireless
6 system. The issue is what the prior art, taken as a whole, would have
7 suggested to an artisan. See Tokyo Shiabura Elec. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio
8 Corp., 548 F.2d 88, 89, fn2, 193 USPQ 73, 75, fn2. (U.S. Ct. Appls. 3rd
9 Cir. 1977),
10 Nor are we persuaded by Appellants' contention (Reply Br. 6) that Dr.
11 Kassam's Declaration points to the recognition of a long felt need for a
12 wireless surgical navigation system. Appellants (id.) point to the assertion
13 in the Kassam Declaration that in neurosurgery, there are a large number of
14 instruments and devices that require power cords, suction tubes and the like.
15 A wired piece has a wire that drags, can catch on other instruments and
16 wires, and can actually pull against the direction the surgeon needs to move
17 the hand piece. As we noted, supra, Acker recognizes the problem of loose
18 wires trailing from the instrument, and solves the problem by replacing the
19 wired system with a wireless system. From the disclosure of Acker, we find
20 that the applied prior art both recognized the problem associated with
21 tethered cords for surgical instruments and also suggested the solution to the
22 problem, e.g., a wireless connection. Appellants additionally point to the
23 assertion in the Klarsfeld Declaration that the wireless, handwired issue is so
24 important that a number of companies have abandoned hardwired, active
25 optical systems in favor of passive wireless systems, and have not developed
23
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013