10714766 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 26, 2008)

Ex Parte Nakamura

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJun 26, 2008

10714766 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 26, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________________ Ex parte TAKEAKI NAKAMURA ____________________ Appeal 2008-0910 Application 10/714,766 Technology Center 3700 ____________________ Decided: June 26, 2008 ____________________ Before: JENNIFER D. BAHR, LINDA E. HORNER and STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY, Administrative Patent Judges. McCARTHY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE 1 The Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 (2002) from the final 2 rejection of claims 1-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (2002) as being 3 unpatentable over Uchikubo (U.S. Patent 6,602,185) in view of Moll (U.S. 4 Patent 6,659,939). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C § 6(b) (2002).5 Appeal 2008-0910 Application 10/714,766 2 We REVERSE. 1 Uchikubo teaches a remote surgery support system in which an 2 operating room and a remote control room in a remote place are linked with 3 a communication line. (Uchikubo, col. 3, ll. 44-49). The Examiner finds 4 that “Uchikubo is silent with respect to a third control system located in a 5 secondary support room.” (Ans. 4). The Appellant contends that “there is no 6 suggestion or motivation in Moll of having multiple master control rooms in 7 which several master surgeons are available to offer support to the surgeon 8 in the operating room.” (App. Br. 27). On this basis, the Appellant contends 9 that “the combination of Uchikubo and Moll (even if such a combination 10 was proper) does not show one or more secondary support rooms for 11 receiving and processing information from the operating room and 12 transmitting a processing result (as secondary support information) to a 13 primary support room (which is not the operating room).” (App. Br. 25). 14 Moll teaches a robotic surgical network. (Moll, col. 3, ll. 3-4). The 15 network permits more than one surgeon to cooperate during a surgical 16 procedure. (Moll, col. 44, ll. 52-53). “For a system having multiple master 17 controls, the system may be arranged so that two operators can operate the 18 same surgical system at the same time by controlling different slave 19 manipulators and swapping manipulators . . . .” (Moll, col. 44, ll. 61-65). 20 Utilizing such a network, “multiple master control rooms can be imagined in 21 which several master surgeons pass various patients back and forth 22 depending on the particular part of a procedure being performed.” (Moll, 23 col. 46, ll. 30-33). One advantage of this arrangement is that master 24 surgeons expert in one part of a procedure may perform that part and then 25 move on to perform the same part in other procedures. (Moll, col. 46, ll. 36-26 Appeal 2008-0910 Application 10/714,766 3 45). When one operator wishes to move the endoscope through which 1 intracavitary images are captured, some cooperation between the operators 2 such as audible communication is required. (Moll, col. 45, ll. 50-55). 3 Moll’s disclosure as exemplified by these passages does not support 4 the Examiner’s finding that Moll teaches “having multiple master control 5 rooms in which several master surgeons are available to offer support to the 6 surgeon in the operating room.” (Ans. 9). While Moll teaches that an 7 alternative surgeon may be on call to one or more operating rooms if one or 8 more patients would benefit from having a surgeon actually present (Moll, 9 col. 46, ll. 50), the reference does not teach that the master surgeons provide 10 support to the alternative surgeon during the operation. In fact, the reference 11 teaches that a master surgeon moves on to treat another patient when the 12 alternative surgeon steps into the surgery (id.). Thus, Moll does not teach 13 one or more secondary support rooms for receiving and processing 14 information from the operating room and transmitting a processing result to 15 a primary master control room which can then be further transmitted to the 16 operating room, as recited in claims 1 and 15. Moll also does not teach one 17 or more secondary support rooms for receiving patient information 18 transmitted from the operating room and transmitting secondary support 19 information based on the patient information to a primary master control 20 room to serve as a basis primary support information transmitted to the 21 operating room as recited in claim 8. 22 Therefore, the Examiner has not articulated reasoning having rational 23 underpinnings in the teachings of Uchikubo and Moll why the subject matter 24 of claims 1-21 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. 25 On the record before us, the Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in 26 Appeal 2008-0910 Application 10/714,766 4 rejecting claims 1-21 under § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Uchikubo 1 and Moll. 2 3 DECISION 4 We REVERSE the rejection of claims 1-21. 5 6 REVERSED 7 8 9 ewh 10 11 SCULLY SCOTT MURPHY & PRESSER, P.C. 12 400 GARDEN CITY PLAZA 13 SUITE 300 14 GARDEN CITY, NY 11530 15