Appeal 2006-1914
Application 09/764,609
1 wireless active tracking devices, as claimed. From our review of claims 1
2 and 29, we do not find any language regarding an "active" wireless system,
3 or any other language that would distinguish the claimed wireless
4 transceiver from the applied prior art. Rather, we agree with the Examiner
5 (Answer 9) that "Appellants' invention as claimed does not involve any
6 particular kind of wireless communication, no specific structure that enables
7 wireless transmission and reception of signals and no specific structure that
8 would be required to modify the handwired prior art systems to use wireless
9 transmission." We further agree with the Examiner (Answer 10) that there is
10 not teaching or evidence in Chader that hard wires are necessary or critical
11 for proper operation of the invention."
12 From all of the above, we find that the strength of the prima facie case
13 advanced by the Examiner is not outweighed by the evidence and arguments
14 presented by Appellants. The rejection of claims 1 and 29, and dependent
15 claims 2-22, 31-34, 80-83, 91-100, 102, 105, and 106 is sustained.
16 We turn next to claims 23-28 and 84-90. Only claim 23 has been
17 argued by Appellants. Accordingly, we select claim 23 as representative of
18 the group. Claim 23 recites, inter alia, an activation button, a release button
19 operatively coupled to the adapter surface, and that the smart instrument is
20 adapted to be interchangeably coupled with a patient tracking system and at
21 least one generic instrument. From our review of the language of the claim,
22 we find that the activation button and release button are not connected to any
23 structure, other than the broad language that the release button is
24 operationally coupled to the adapter interface. Nor do we find any recited
25 function relating to the operation of these buttons. We find from the
24
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013