Ex Parte Carbunaru et alDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 30, 201912952845 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 30, 2019) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 12/952,845 11/23/2010 45458 7590 06/03/2019 SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/BSC POBOX2938 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402 Rafael Carbunaru 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. 6279.071US1 2445 EXAMINER LEVICKY, WILLIAM J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3792 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/03/2019 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): uspto@slwip.com SLW@blackhillsip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte RAFAEL CARBUNARU, KRISTEN JAAX, and ANDREW DIGIORE Appeal2017-008718 Application 12/952,845 1 Technology Center 3700 Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, LYNNE H. BROWNE, and JASON W. MELVIN, Administrative Patent Judges. MEL VIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This appeal arises under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), from a rejection of claims 1-23. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We affirm. 1 Appellants identify Boston Scientific Neuromodulation Corporation as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal2017-008718 Application 12/952,845 BACKGROUND The claims are directed to a neurostimulation system and method for combining current using reconfigurable current sources. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A neurostimulation system, comprising: a plurality of electrical terminals configured for being coupled to a respective plurality of electrodes; a plurality of electrical sources, each of the plurality of electrical sources including digital-to-analog circuitry (DAC) to deliver current determined in accordance with input bits, each of the plurality of electrical sources including a reconfigurable electric source that includes a source/sink pair, the source/sink pair including an anodic current source, a cathodic current source, and a common node connected to an output of the anodic current source and connected to an output of the cathodic current source; a switching network coupled between the electrical sources and the electrical terminals; and control circuitry configured for reconfiguring one of the electrical sources from a second polarity to a first polarity, causing the one electrical source to generate a first electrical current when configured in the first polarity, causing another one of the electrical sources to generate a second electrical current, causing the switching network to combine at least a portion of the first electrical current and at least a portion of the second electrical current in one of an additive manner and a subtractive manner to produce a first combined electrical current, and conveying the first combined electrical current to or from one of the electrodes. Appeal Br. 20 (Claims App.). 2 Appeal2017-008718 Application 12/952,845 EVIDENCE The Examiner relies on Meadows, US 6,516,227 B 1 (issued Feb. 4, 2003) in view of Applicants' admitted prior art (AAP A). Final Act. 4. REJECTIONS Appellants seek our review of the final rejection of claims 1-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(b) as unpatentable over Meadows and the AAP A. Final Act. 4--11; Appeal Br. 11-18. DISCUSSION The Examiner finds that Meadows substantially teaches the limitations of claim 1. Final Act. 4--6. The Examiner finds, however, that "Meadows et al does not disclose each of the plurality of electrical sources includes digital-to-analog circuitry (DAC) to deliver output current determined in accordance with input bits." Id. at 5. The Examiner finds that the AAPA teaches the claimed electrical sources. Id. at 6. Further, the Examiner finds that using sources as described in the AAP A "would provide the predictable results of regulating/amplifying the reference current provided by the current sources in order to deliver the output current needed/desired." Id. Appellants argue: [NJ either Meadows nor the AAP A explicitly or inherently show control circuitry configured for causing the switching network to combine at least a portion of the first electrical current and at least a portion of the second electrical current in one of an additive manner and a subtractive manner to produce a first combined electrical current, and conveying the first combined electrical current to or from one of the electrodes. 3 Appeal2017-008718 Application 12/952,845 Appeal Br. 12. Regarding Meadows, Appellants dispute the Examiner's finding that Meadows discloses "having both current sources I 1 and I2 connected to the same electrode E 1." Id. at 12-13 ( quoting Final Act. 4--5) ( emphasis omitted). According to Appellants "Meadows does not indicate that current from more than one DAC current source is combined in one of an additive manner and a subtractive manner to produce a first combined electrical current." Id. at 13. Appellants focus on Meadows's example in which current sources are connected to distinct electrodes. Id. at 13-14. For this limitation, the Examiner relies on Meadows' s description that each pair of current sources connect to a common node 187, which "in tum is connected through a low impedance switching matrix 188 to any of n electrode nodes El, E2, E3, ... En." Meadows, 18:15-20; Final Act. 5; Ans. 2--4. We agree with the Examiner's finding that Meadows teaches the claimed control circuitry for controlling the current sources. By disclosing the flexible arrangement described above----connection of each current source to any of the electrodes-Meadows is consistent with the claim language. Although Meadows discloses an example where only a single current source is connected to any electrode (see Appeal Br. 13 ( quoting Meadows, 18:29-38, Fig. 4A)), that does not limit Meadows's broader disclosure. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ("[I]n a section 103 inquiry, 'the fact that a specific [embodiment] is taught to be preferred is not controlling, since all disclosures of the prior art, including unpreferred embodiments, must be considered."' ( quoting In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750 (CCPA 1976))). Appellants further dispute the Examiner's statement regarding the AAP A, in which the Examiner views the AAP A as consistent with how 4 Appeal2017-008718 Application 12/952,845 Meadows is applied in the rejection. See Appeal Br. 12; Reply 2--4. In response to Appellants' argument in a Response After Final Action that the Examiner read the description of the AAP A in the Specification without considering the full context of other paragraphs, the Examiner takes the position that later statements in the Specification cannot overcome statements already made. Adv. Act. 3; accord Ans. 4---6. We do not understand the Examiner to rely on the AAP A to show that Meadows satisfies the limitation at issue and thus, the Examiner's characterization of those AAPA statements is not pertinent to the rejection in this regard. To the extent we would consider them, however, we agree with the Examiner that paragraph 11 of the Specification characterizes the prior art in a manner consistently with the Examiner's application of Meadows. The paragraph states that, "[t]hrough appropriate control of the switching matrix 6, any of the nodes 7 may be connected to any of the electrodes Ex at any time." Spec. ,r 11. While other, later statements attempt to limit the breadth of paragraph 11 (see Spec. ,r 13), we agree with the Examiner that statements in the Specification may be taken for their plain meaning. 2 We, therefore sustain the rejection of claim 1. The Examiner additionally makes findings regarding claims 2-23. Final Act. 7-11. For those claims, Appellants rely on the arguments made for claim 1. Appeal 2 We note further that in the rejection at issue in a prior appeal to the Board, the Examiner relied on Gord (WO 00/00251 (published Jan. 6, 2000)), as incorporated into Meadows, for teaching the claim limitation at issue here. See Ex Parte Carbunaru, Appeal 2013-008561 (PTAB Jan. 8, 2016). Although, in the present rejection, the Examiner does not rely on Gord's disclosures, and we do not rely on them to affirm, those disclosures appear to further support the Examiner's application of Meadows. 5 Appeal2017-008718 Application 12/952,845 Br. 17-18. Accordingly, we also sustain the rejection of claims 2-23 for the same reasons as for claim 1. DECISION The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-23 is affirmed. 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 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation