Appeal 2007-2314
Application 10/657,110
object representative of the endoscope shaft and a software object
representative of the video image acquired by the endoscope (id. at col. 7,
ll. 36-44). The various software objects of the anatomical 3-D computer
models and of the endoscope 3-D computer models are merged “into a
single composition image combining both live video images derived from
endoscope 90 with computer generated images derived from the computer
graphics system” (id. at col. 8, ll. 36-45).
Dohi describes an endoscope having a prism “and an actuator to drive
the prism on a given command signal, whereby a different endoscope image
is obtained through the movement of the prism” (Dohi, ¶ 0009). Dohi
describes an actuator including motors 7 and 8, the motor driving amount
being detected by rotary encoders 9 and 10 (id. at ¶ 0023). A prism
position-detecting part detects prism movement “based on the driving
amounts of the motors 7 and 8 detected by the rotary encoders 9 and 10” (id.
at ¶ 0024). We agree with the Examiner that it would have been obvious to
use Dohi’s variable-direction-of-view endoscope in the system described in
Chen in order to provide “various endoscope images in good quality without
the movement or bending of an endoscope” (Answer 7), and that the
combined references suggest the method of claim 9.
Appellants argue that “there is no suggestion in the prior art to make
the combination necessary to arrive at [the] invention recited in claim 9”
(Br. 5). In particular, Appellants argue that the Examiner’s rationale “is
simply a reason why an internal view changing mechanism is desirable” and
“does not provide any suggestion to combine such a mechanism with a
tracking system such as Chen’s” (id. at 6).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013