BONE FOAM, LLCDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 29, 202013766063 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 29, 2020) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 13/766,063 02/13/2013 Doug Parsell 19757.2 2492 22913 7590 05/29/2020 Workman Nydegger 60 East South Temple Suite 1000 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 EXAMINER HICKS, VICTORIA J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3786 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/29/2020 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): Docketing@wnlaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte DOUG PARSELL and CHAD ROBRAN ____________ Appeal 2019-006225 Application 13/766,063 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before HUBERT C. LORIN, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and MATTHEW S. MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judges. LORIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final Rejection of claims 1, 3, 8–18, and 21–27, which are all the pending claims in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002). We AFFIRM-IN-PART. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies Bone Foam, Inc., as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2019-006225 Application 13/766,063 2 THE INVENTION The claimed subject matter relates to “devices and methods for use in removing biological debris from patient extremities” (Spec. para. 2). The independent claims are claims 1, 17, and 21. Claim 1 is illustrative, and is reproduced below: 1. An apparatus for supporting an extremity during tissue debridement and capturing fluid and tissue resulting from tissue irrigation and debridement, comprising: [(a)] an extremity-supporting base configured to support an extremity of a patient during tissue irrigation and debridement, said extremity-supporting base having [(a1)] a proximal end positioned nearest a patient’s body during use, [(a2)] a distal end opposite said proximal end, [(a3)] a bottom surface, [(a4)] a support surface, and [(a5)] a total of two opposing sidewalls extending above the support surface and longitudinally along sides of the support surface, [(b)] the support surface and the two opposing sidewalls forming a trough of fixed length longitudinally extending from a point near the proximal end of the extremity-supporting base to the distal end of the extremity-supporting base and being adapted for placement and support of the extremity thereon, [(c)] said extremity-supporting base having a height that decreases from a point near said proximal end to said distal end so that said trough slopes downwardly between said proximal end and said distal end, [(d)] the extremity-supporting base being open at the proximal end and open at the distal end to enable fluid to move distally along the trough toward and beyond the distal end of the trough; Appeal 2019-006225 Application 13/766,063 3 [(e)] a barrier shroud positionable and adapted so as to at least partially enclose an extremity supported by said support surface; and [(f)] a drainage opening disposed in said barrier shroud that provides controlled drainage of fluid during tissue irrigation and debridement, the drainage opening being positioned to receive fluid passing distally beyond a distal end of the trough. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Morris US 4,974,604 Dec. 4, 1990 Holloway US 5,381,562 Jan. 17, 1995 Bowman US 5,439,008 Aug. 8, 1995 Walle US 5,584,303 Dec. 17, 1996 Harty US 6,405,389 B1 June 18, 2002 Matloub US 7,678,092 B2 Mar. 16, 2010 Strauch US 2011/0297164 A1 Dec. 8, 2011 THE REJECTIONS2 The following rejections are before us for review: 1. Claims 1, 3, 9, 11–14, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Holloway and Harty. 2. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Holloway, Harty, and Morris. 3. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Holloway, Harty, and Matloub. 4. Claims 15, 17, 18, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Holloway, Harty, and Walle. 2 The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, are withdrawn. Ans. 23–24. Appeal 2019-006225 Application 13/766,063 4 5. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Holloway, Harty, Walle, and Bowman. 6. Claims 21, 22, 25, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Holloway, Harty, Walle, and Strauch. 7. Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Holloway, Harty, and Strauch. 8. Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite. ANALYSIS The rejection of claims 1, 3, 9, 11–14, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Holloway and Harty. Independent claim 1 recites an “extremity-supporting base being . . . open at the distal end to enable fluid to move distally along the trough toward and beyond the distal end of the trough.” The Examiner’s position is that Holloway’s rectangular basin 10 meets this limitation because it enables fluid to move through hose 46 and “hose 46 is taught to extend beyond” the distal end of the basin. Final Act. 10. The Examiner provides an annotated version of Figure 5 of Holloway to show how Holloway’s basin and hose meets the disputed limitation. Appeal 2019-006225 Application 13/766,063 5 Examiner’s annotated version of Figure 5 of Holloway. Final Act. 11. The Examiner has identified hose 46 as the location in Figure 5 that is an “open distal end.” See id. at 3 (“the distal end (as defined in the annotated copy of Figure 5 provided below) is open at the location defined ‘open distal end’ in the annotated copy of Figure 5.”) Appellant argues, inter alia, that Holloway’s rectangular basin is not “open at the distal end” as required by claim 1. Appeal Br. 11. According to Appellant, the Examiner has construed this limitation unreasonably broadly, and under a proper interpretation “open at the distal end” excludes a base having a sidewall at the distal end, such as Holloway’s basin. Id.; see also Reply Br. 8–9. We agree with Appellant. The Specification discloses two embodiments of an extremity- supporting base. Spec. paras. 16–17. In the embodiment of Figure 1, the Appeal 2019-006225 Application 13/766,063 6 extremity-supporting base includes “a downward sloping concave trough with a dam and drainage opening at a distal end.” Id. paras. 16, 29–33. In this embodiment, “base dam 19 is positioned at distal end 12 in close proximity to base drainage opening 18” as shown in Figure 1. Id. para. 31. By contrast, “Figure 2 is an alternative embodiment of an extremity- supporting base having a downward sloping concave trough and being open at a distal end.” Id. para. 17 (emphasis added).3 In light of the Specification’s description of an extremity-supporting base being open at a distal end by way of contradistinction to a base having a base dam at the distal end, we agree with Appellant that the claim 1 limitation “the extremity-supporting base being . . . open at the distal end” excludes a base having a dam or sidewall at the distal end. Holloway describes rectangular basin 10 as “a generally open-top pan having a contoured bottom 14 and having its interior and exterior surfaces defined by a substantially continuous sidewall 12 which describes the four side panels 70, 72, 74 and 76.” Holloway 4:66–5:2. Holloway further discloses: As seen in FIGS. 1 and 2 the sidewall 12 describes a front end panel 70, an opposing back end panel 72 and a pair of opposing longitudinal side panels 74, 76. Each of the panels 70, 72, 74 and 76 are in continuous relationship with one another, with the bottom 14 and with the sidewall 12. 3 In the embodiment of Figure 2, base 20 does not have a base dam or a base drainage opening at the distal end, which allows base 20 to “be used with and support a barrier shroud having a shroud dam and a shroud drainage opening that are positioned beyond distal end 22 of base 20.” Id. para. 35. This is also reflected in claim 1, which recites “a drainage opening disposed in said barrier shroud.” Appeal 2019-006225 Application 13/766,063 7 Id. at 5:11–16. We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has unreasonably broadly construed the limitation “open at the distal end” in claim 1 as encompassing Holloway’s rectangular basin having sidewalls on each side. In particular, instead of being open at the distal end, Holloway’s basin 10 includes back end panel 72. The Examiner’s position – that the presence of hose 46 at the distal end implies that Holloway’s basin 10 is “open at the distal end” – is unreasonably broad in light of the Specification and the language of claim 1. Although Holloway’s hose 46 may “enable fluid to move distally . . .” as the Examiner finds, Holloway’s basin does not meet the claimed structural limitation of the extremity-supporting base being “open at the distal end.” For the foregoing reasons, the rejection of claim 1 and claims 3, 9, 11–14, and 23 depending therefrom is not sustained. The rejection of claims 15, 17, 18, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Holloway, Harty, and Walle. Claim 17 recites an extremity-supporting base forming a trough, and “wherein the trough includes a high point disposed near the proximal end of the extremity-supporting base and a low point at the distal end of the extremity-supporting base, the trough sloping downward from the high point to the low point at a constant angle of decline.” The Examiner finds that Holloway discloses this limitation as shown in the Examiner’s annotated version of Figure 5 of Holloway, reproduced below: Appeal 2019-006225 Application 13/766,063 8 Examiner’s annotated version of Figure 5 of Holloway. Final Act. 19. Appellant argues, inter alia, that “[i]t is questionable whether the ‘low point’ as pointed to by the Examiner could reasonably be said to be ‘near’ the distal end, but it is unreasonable to interpret it as being ‘at the distal end.’” Appeal Br. 12. Responding to Appellant’s argument in the Answer, the Examiner states: While Appellant argues that the low point of Holloway cannot reasonably be said to be “near” the distal end, the examiner asserts that the low point (as defined in the annotated copy of Figure 5 provided below) of Holloway is actually positioned within (and therefore, must be “near”) the distal end (as defined in the annotated copy of Figure 5 provided below). The examiner again emphasizes that an end is defined to mean “the part of an area that lies at the boundary” (https://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/end). Therefore, the claimed “distal end” does not have to be a terminal point (as Appellant argues) but instead, can constitute an area (consistent with the “distal end” defined by the examiner in the annotated copy of Figure 5 below). Appeal 2019-006225 Application 13/766,063 9 Ans. 28–29 (reproducing the same annotated version of Holloway’s Figure 5) (emphasis omitted). The difficulty with the Examiner’s position is that claim 17 recites “a low point at the distal end” of the base and not merely “near” the distal end. Holloway’s sloping surface 22 of platform 20 clearly does not reach the distal end of Holloway’s base 10. The low point of Holloway’s elevated platform portion 20 is separated from the distal end by the width of channel 40, which includes sump 44. This is more easily seen in Figure 2 of Holloway, reproduced below: Figure 2 of Holloway. Holloway’s Figure 2 depicts the same embodiment as Figure 5, on which the Examiner relies, and clearly shows that Holloway’s elevated platform 20 does not extend to the distal end of basin 10 (top of Figure 2). See Holloway 6:48–52 (“The top surface of the elevated platform portion 22 preferably Appeal 2019-006225 Application 13/766,063 10 slopes downwardly from the seat 36 toward the channel 40 to direct liquid flowing from the elevated platform portion 20 during usage to the channel.”) For the foregoing reasons, the rejection of claim 17 and claims 18 and 26 depending therefrom is not sustained. Claim 15 depends directly from independent claim 1. The Examiner does not rely on the additional reference (Walle) in any way that would cure the deficiency in the rejection of independent claim 1 discussed above. Thus, the rejection of claim 15 is not sustained for the reasons given above for not sustaining the rejection of independent claim 1 from which claim 15 depends. The rejection of claims 21, 22, 25, and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Holloway, Harty, Walle, and Strauch. Appellant argues that “Strauch’s surgical drape includes open top and bottom ends through which portions of the operating table and the patient extend” and therefore does not “fully enclose the extremity-supporting base, including the entire bottom surface of the extremity-supporting base” as required by independent claim 21. Appeal Br. 13–14. Responding to Appellant’s argument in the Answer, the Examiner states: Strauch clearly teaches in Figure 1C that the barrier shroud (surgical drape 2) is adapted to fully enclose the extremity- supporting base (operating table), including the entire bottom surface (as shown in Figure 1C) of the extremity-supporting base (operating table). Figures 1C clearly shows the barrier shroud (surgical drape 2) extending around all sides of, and therefore fully enclosing, the extremity-supporting base (operating table). Ans. 30 (emphasis omitted). Appeal 2019-006225 Application 13/766,063 11 As Appellant points out, “Claim 21 requires that the shroud ‘fully enclose the extremity-supporting base, including the entire bottom surface of the extremity-supporting base.’” Reply Br. 11. “Figure 1A, which is simply a side view of the same embodiment of Figures 1B and 1C, clearly shows that the drape 2 does not enclose the entire bottom surface of the operating table.” Id. (emphasis omitted). For the reasons set forth by Appellant, the rejection of claim 21 and claim 22 depending therefrom is not sustained. Claims 25 and 27 depend directly or indirectly from independent claim 17. The Examiner does not rely on the additional reference (Strauch) in any way that would cure the deficiency in the rejection of independent claim 17 discussed above. Thus, the rejection of claims 25 and 27 is not sustained for the reasons given above for not sustaining the rejection of independent claim 17 from which claims 25 and 27 depend. The rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Holloway, Harty, and Morris. The rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Holloway, Harty, and Matloub. The rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Holloway, Harty, Walle, and Bowman. The rejection of claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Holloway, Harty, and Strauch. With regard to these rejections, the Examiner does not rely on the additional references (Morris, Matloub, Walle, Bowman, and Strauch) to cure the deficiencies discussed above. Thus, the rejections of claims 8, 10, 16, and 24 are not sustained for the reasons given above for not sustaining the rejections of independent claims 1 and 17 from which they depend. Appeal 2019-006225 Application 13/766,063 12 The rejection of claim 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite. The Examiner rejected claim 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite. Final Act. 8. Appellant does not argue the rejection, and instead “notes that the remaining issues with claim 27 appear to be mostly formal in nature and readily resolvable through future discussion and/or amendment.” Reply Br. 12. Accordingly, the rejection is sustained. CONCLUSION In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 3, 9, 11–14, 23 103(a) Holloway, Harty 1, 3, 9, 11–14, 23 8 103(a) Holloway, Harty, Morris 8 10 103(a) Holloway, Harty, Matloub 10 15, 17, 18, 26 103(a) Holloway, Harty, Walle 15, 17, 18, 26 16 103(a) Holloway, Harty, Walle, Bowman 16 21, 22, 25, 27 103(a) Holloway, Harty, Walle, Strauch 21, 22, 25, 27 24 103(a) Holloway, Harty, Strauch 24 27 112, 2nd paragraph Indefiniteness 27 Overall Outcome 27 1, 3, 8–18, 21–26 Appeal 2019-006225 Application 13/766,063 13 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation