Appeal 2007-2314
Application 10/657,110
object 90B’ as behaving like a single unit” (Chen col. 8, ll. 14-22), we do not
agree that that this teaching is sufficient to teach away from combining Dohi
with Chen. This teaching indicates that it is sometimes convenient if the
optical characteristics of the endoscope remain constant (id. at col. 8, ll. 14-
15). However, it does not suggest that using an endoscope with an internal
view changing mechanism is unlikely to be productive.
Appellants also argue that “even if an internal view changing
mechanism were incorporated into the Chen device, there is still no
disclosure of ‘acquiring configuration data’ of such a view changing
mechanism, and displaying representations of the subsurface structure and
the endoscopic line of sight in their correct relative spatial relationship based
on this configuration data” (Br. 10).
We are not persuaded by this argument. Chen describes a tracking
system that generates output signals “representative of the spatial positioning
and orientation of [the] endoscope” (Chen, col. 5, ll. 14-17). In addition,
Chen describes using this data “for positioning [a] real-time software object
in registration with . . . pre-existing software objects” (id. at col. 3, ll. 1-3).
Although we agree with Appellants that Chen does not describe “acquiring
configuration data of an internal view changing mechanism of [an]
endoscope” and displaying representations of a subsurface structure based
on these data, we conclude that, once the system of Chen is modified to
include Dohi’s endoscope, it would have been obvious to do so in order to
correctly position the real-time software object in registration with the
pre-existing software objects.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013