Appeal 2007-2314
Application 10/657,110
We disagree. As admitted by Appellants, the Examiner provides a
reason why an internal view changing mechanism is desirable, specifically
that it provides “various endoscope images in good quality without the
movement or bending of an endoscope” (Answer 7). As discussed above,
we agree with the Examiner that this reason provides motivation to use
Dohi’s endoscope in the system described in Chen.
In addition, Appellants argue that “there is no basis for the assertion
that the Chen design even could be modified in this way. It is unclear why
[Chen’s] tracking system 97 is allegedly able to receive and process signals
from rotary encoders in [Dohi’s] scope.” (Br. 8.) “[T]here is certainly no
teaching in the Chen reference of a tracking system that is operative to
acquire configuration data of view changing mechanisms of the scope” (id.).
We are not persuaded by this argument. Instead, in the absence of any
evidence to the contrary, we agree with the Examiner that “a skilled artisan
would observe that the same signals which allow the ‘prism position-
detecting part 14’ to detect the orientation of . . . Dohi’s endoscope [can] be
applied to Chen’s ‘tracking system 97’ in order to determine the orientation
of the endoscope” (Answer 11).
Appellants also argue that “both references specifically teach away
[from] such a design change. Specifically, each of these references
discusses the advantages of their forms of changing the direction of view
without using the type of motion described in the other reference.” (Br. 9.)
In particular, Dohi “explains that the objective of the Dohi system is to
acquire images of particular, focused areas without moving or bending the
scope” (id.). In addition,
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013