Ex Parte Gandhi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 22, 2017

14259531 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 22, 2017)

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.
14/259,531 04/23/2014 Deepak Gandhi MIC5008US CNT14 3917
27777 7590 09/26/2017
JOSEPH F. SHIRTZ
JOHNSON & JOHNSON
ONE JOHNSON & JOHNSON PLAZA
NEW BRUNSWICK, NJ 08933-7003
EXAMINER
WEISBERG, AMY REGINA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3731
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/26/2017 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):
j nju spatent @ coru s .j nj. com
lhowd@its.jnj.com
pair_jnj @ firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DEEPAK GANDHI and KAMAL RAMZIPOOR
Appeal 2016-000711
Application 14/259,531
Technology Center 3700
Before NINA L. MEDLOCK, CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, and
TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.
MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’
rejection of claims 1—7. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
'“[T]he real party in interest for this patent application is DePuy Synthes
Products, Inc.” (Appeal Br. 1.)
Appeal 2016-000711
Application 14/259,531
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants’ invention “particularly concerns a system and method
for delivering intravascular interventional devices, such as for treatment of
aneurysms.” (Spec. 13.)
Illustrative Claim
1. An apparatus for release and deployment of a
therapeutic device within the vasculature of a patient,
comprising:
an elongated, flexible pusher member having an interior
lumen and a distal portion;
a tubular collar detachably mounting a therapeutic device
to the pusher member for placement of the therapeutic device
within the vasculature, the tubular collar being configured to
release the therapeutic device when heated; and
an electrical resistance heater coil disposed in the tubular
collar of the pusher member for heating the tubular collar to
cause the tubular collar to release the therapeutic device while
providing an insulative space to avoid thermal damage to
surrounding tissue.
Rejection
The Examiner rejects claims 1—7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kurz2 and Ashley.3 (Final Action 2.)
ANALYSIS
Claim 1 is the sole independent on appeal with the rest of the claims
on appeal (i.e., claims 2—7) depending therefrom. (See Appeal Br., Claims
App.) Independent claim 1 recites “a tubular collar” and an element “for
heating the tubular collar to cause the tubular collar to release [a] therapeutic
2 US 6,296,622 B1 issued Oct. 2, 2001.
3 US 6,176,857 B1 issued Jan. 23, 2001.
2
Appeal 2016-000711
Application 14/259,531
device while providing an insulative space to avoid thermal damage to
surrounding tissue.” (Id.) The Examiner finds that Kurz teaches a tubular
collar as required by independent claim 1. (See Final Action 2—3.)
The Appellants argue that Kurz does not teach a tubular collar that
provides “an insulative space to avoid thermal damage to surrounding
tissue.” (See Appeal Br. 3 4.) We are not persuaded by this argument as it
appears to be premised upon independent claim 1 requiring the insulative
space be located within the tubular collar. However, as noted by the
Examiner, independent claim 1 does not specify that “the location of the
insulative space” must be “between the tubular collar and the [heating
element].” (Answer 3.)
As such, independent claim 1 does not preclude the insulative space
from being outside, rather than within, the tubular collar. And the Examiner
finds that, when Kurz’s tubular collar is situated in a large diameter blood
vessel and “not in contact with the inner surface of the surrounding tissue,”
Kurz’s tubular collar does indeed provide an insulative space to avoid
thermal damage to the tissue of the vessel. (Answer 3.) The Appellants do
not dispute this finding in a Reply Brief.
Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—7 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kurz and Ashley.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—7.
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
3