Ex Parte Askarinya et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 12, 2016

13113685 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 12, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/113,685 05/23/2011
27581 7590 09/14/2016
Medtronic, Inc. (CRDM)
710 MEDTRONIC PARKWAY NE
MS: LC340 Legal Patents
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55432-9924
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Mohsen Askarinya
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
P0038544.00/LG10126.L33 1104
EXAMINER
SO, ELIZABETH K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3766
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/14/2016 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):
medtronic_crdm_docketing@cardinal-ip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MOHSEN ASKARINY A and ERIK J. HERRMANN
Appeal 2015-000151 1,2
Application 13/113,685
Technology Center 3700
Before ANTON W. PETTING, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and
KENNETH G. SCHOPPER, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claims 1, 2, and 4--16. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
According to Appellants, "[ t ]he disclosure relates to implantable
medical devices and, more particularly, to configurations of implantable
1 Our decision references Appellants' Specification ("Spec.," filed May 23,
2011), Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.," filed Mar. 13, 2014), and the Reply Brief
("Reply Br.," filed Aug. 29, 2014), as well as the Examiner's Answer
("Answer," mailed July 2, 2014).
2 According to Appellants, Medtronic, Inc. is the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal2015-000151
Application 13/113,685
medical devices." Spec. i1 1. Claim l is the only independent claim under
appeal. See Appeal Br., Claims App. Below, we reproduce claim 1, as
representative of the appealed claims.
Id.
1. An implantable medical device (IMD) comprising:
a liquid crystal polymer (LCP) housing defining an outer
surface of the IMD;
circuitry disposed within the LCP outer housing; and
an electrical feedthrough extending from a first end
proximate the circuitry to a second end proximate to the outer
surface, wherein the electrical feedthrough defines a major axis
extending between the first end and the second end, and
wherein the electrical feedthrough comprises non-uniform
width measured in a direction along a plane substantially
orthogonal to the major axis.
REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 4--9, and 13 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Strother (US 2008/0033500 Al, pub. Feb. 7,
2008).
The Examiner rejects claims 10, 12, and 14--16 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Strother.
The Examiner rejects claim 11under35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Strother and Edell (US 2002/0198582 Al, pub. Dec. 26,
2002).
See Answer 2---6.
2
Appeal2015-000151
Application 13/113,685
ANALYSIS
With respect to independent claim 1, from which claims 2 and 10-16
depend and which Appellants do not argue separately, Appellants argue that
the anticipation rejection is in error because "the explicit teachings of
Strother do not support the alternate interpretation that the structure of the
receptacle 64 and the associated conductors 84, 86, 88 is a feedthrough[,]
and the reliance on that interpretation as set forth in the rejection is
erroneous." Reply Br. 6; see also id. at 5---6. We disagree, however, with
Appellants.
We acknowledge that Strother refers to "feed-thrus 28" (that are part
of a so-called typical implantable device, which is different from the
embodiment on which the Examiner relies to reject the claims), and
identifies element 64 as a "connector system." See id. at 5---6, referencing
Strother i-fi-f 10, 56. Notwithstanding this acknowledgement, Appellants do
not persuade us that the Examiner's finding that connector system 64 teaches
the claimed feedthrough is unsupported by a preponderance of the evidence
or is unreasonably broad. For example, Appellants do not point to anything,
such as a portion of the Specification or the claims, or cite to other evidence,
sufficient to persuade us that Strother' s connector system 64 may not teach
the claimed feedthrough. Further, we note that connector system 64 appears
to function as "'an electrical connector used to join two parts of a circuit on
opposite sides of something,"' consistent with the definition proffered by the
Examiner during prosecution of the application, to which Appellants do not
object.3
3 See Final Office Action mailed Oct. 11, 2013, 2-3.
3
Appeal2015-000151
Application 13/113,685
Thus, based on the foregoing, we sustain the rejection of claim 1.
Further, inasmuch as Appellants do not separately argue the rejections of
claims 2 and 10-16, we sustain the anticipation and obviousness rejections
of these claims.
Appellants separately argue the anticipation rejection of claims 4--9,
which depend from claim 1. See Appeal Br. 8-9. Specifically, Appellants
argue that the rejection of claim 4 is in error because Strother does not
disclose the claimed radial projections. See id. However, the Examiner's
findings regarding Strother's teaching the claimed radial projections (i.e.,
that the curved portion of connector system 64 teaches the claimed
projection) is reasonable. See Answer 8-9. Further, Appellants do not argue
against the Examiner's finding, and, thus, do not demonstrate that the
Examiner's finding is erroneous. Therefore, we also sustain the anticipation
rejection of claims 4--9.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's anticipation and obviousness rejections of
claims 1, 2, and 4--16.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
4