Ex Parte Ghelli et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 16, 2008

10382692 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 16, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte NICOLA GHELLI, IVO PANZANI, and GABRIELE TOMMASI
__________

Appeal 2008-1845
Application 10/382,692
Technology Center 3700
__________

Decided June 16, 2008
__________

Before LORA M. GREEN, RICHARD M. LEBOVITZ, and
JEFFREY N. FREDMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

FREDMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims to a vacuum
assisted venous blood reservoir which the Examiner has rejected as
anticipated. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.

Appeal 2008-1845
Application 10/382,692

Background
“It is known that many surgical procedures entail the need to divert
the blood of the patient into an extracorporeal circuit that comprises blood
accumulation reservoirs” (Spec. 1). The Specification notes that “[o]ne of
the reservoirs is the so-called venous reservoir, which receives the blood,
known as venous blood, from the patient before it is passed through an
oxygenation apparatus, which is also included in the extracorporeal circuit,”
(Spec. 1).
Appellants teach the “aim of the present invention is therefore to
provide a venous reservoir that ensures intensive drainage of the blood of the
patient without any limitation in selecting its location. Within this aim, an
object of the invention is to devise a venous reservoir combined with a
cardiotomy reservoir” (Spec. 1).
Statement of the Case
The Claims
Claims 6-8 are on appeal. Claim 6 is representative and reads as
follows:
6. A vacuum assisted venous reservoir system adapted to
be connected to a vacuum source, the vacuum assisted
venous reservoir system comprising:
a sealed blood chamber having a blood inlet and a
blood outlet;
a vacuum port connected at an upper portion of the
chamber, the vacuum port adapted for connection to the
vacuum source;
and a vacuum controller connected to sense pressure
in at least two locations within the blood chamber and, in
response to the sensed pressure, to regulate the amount of
vacuum applied by the vacuum source at the vacuum port.
2
Appeal 2008-1845
Application 10/382,692

The prior art
The Examiner relies on the following prior art reference to show
unpatentability:
Cambron US 6,017,493 Jan. 25, 2000

The issue
The rejection as presented by the Examiner is as follows:
Claims 6-8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e), as being
anticipated by Cambron (Ans. 3).
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection over Cambron
Appellants argue that “Cambron does not disclose nor teach all
limitations set forth in claim 6” (App. Br. 5). Appellants specifically
contend that “[a]lthough Cambron discloses the use of multiple sensors,
including pressure sensors, to regulate vacuum, Cambron does not disclose
the use of separate pressure sensors to sense pressure in at least two
locations in the blood chamber and to regulate the amount of vacuum
applied based on the sensed pressure as required by claim 6” (App. Br. 5).
The Examiner responds that “Cambron teaches that sensors may be
positioned at critical locations (emphasis plural) for measuring pressure and
that the pressure can be sensed and/or controlled with a programmable
microprocessor” (Ans. 4). The Examiner contends that “Cambron further
teaches that the amount of vacuum can be applied to the reservoir as a result
of the sensor and controller system (Col. 11, line 56-Col. 12, line 5).” (Ans.
4).
In view of these apparently conflicting positions, we frame the
anticipation issue before us as follows:
3
Appeal 2008-1845
Application 10/382,692

Does Cambron teach a reservoir with a vacuum controller connected
to sense pressure in at least two locations within the blood chamber?
Findings of Fact (FF)
1. Cambron teaches “a vacuum assisted venous drainage system”
(Cambron, col. 2, l. 51).
2. Cambron teaches that the system has a “cannula 26 and return
line 28, in combination with a venous reservoir 30 supplied with a negative
pressure from a wall vacuum 32” (Cambron, col. 5, ll. 22-24). Cambron
teaches that the cannula is the blood inlet and the return line is the blood
outlet (see Cambron, fig. 2)
3. Cambron teaches that a “vacuum regulator 34 and indicator 36
are provided in a vacuum line 38 between the wall vacuum 32 and the
reservoir 30” (Cambron, col. 5, ll. 28-30).
4. Cambron teaches “a controller 40 which receives input from
sensors in various locations within the system 20” (Cambron, col. 5, ll. 31-
32).
5. Cambron teaches that “[f]or example, a pressure sensor 42 may
be provided in the venous return line 28 to sense overpressure caused by
blockage . . . . Another sensor 44 may be provided to sense the pressure
within the reservoir 30” (Cambron, col. 5, ll. 32-36).
6. Cambron teaches that within the reservoir 134 shown in Figure
6, a “second pressure regulator 170 communicates with the interior of the
reservoir 134 via a conduit 172” and a “third pressure regulator 180
communicates with the interior of the reservoir 134 via a conduit 182”
(Cambron, col. 10, ll. 51-60).
4
Appeal 2008-1845
Application 10/382,692

7. Cambron teaches that “sensors may be positioned around
system 130 for monitoring pressures, flows, temperatures, blood levels, etc.
A microprocessor 194 may be provided to control the three pressure
regulators 164, 170 and 180” (Cambron, col. 11, ll. 8-11).
Discussion of 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection over Cambron
Cambron teaches a vacuum assisted venous reservoir system (FF 1)
with a sealed blood chamber with blood inlet and outlet (FF 2), a vacuum
port connected to the chamber (FF 3) and a vacuum controller connected to
sense pressure in at least two locations and to regulate the amount of vacuum
(FF 4-7).
The disputed difference between Cambron and the claim 6 is whether
Cambron teaches that the vacuum controller is “connected to sense pressure
in at least two locations within the blood chamber”. However, claim 6 has
no specific location that is required for the sensors, only that the controller
has inputs which will provide pressure information regarding two locations
within the blood chamber (see Claim 6). We therefore interpret the presence
of two or more pressure sensors at two different locations in the device that
are sensitive to the pressure in the blood chamber and which function to
inherently provide pressure information on the blood chamber. See In re
Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367 at 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000) “[d]uring examination
proceedings, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the specification.”).
Applying this broadest reasonable interpretation of “sense pressure in
at least two locations within the blood chamber”, we find that Cambron
teaches the use of two sensors which will detect pressures at two different
5
Appeal 2008-1845
Application 10/382,692

locations in the blood chamber (see FF 5). Specifically, Cambron teaches “a
pressure sensor 42 may be provided in the venous return line 28 to sense
overpressure caused by blockage . . . . Another sensor 44 may be provided
to sense the pressure within the reservoir 30” (Cambron, col. 5, ll. 32-36).
The pressure sensor 44 is clearly a sensor within the blood chamber and the
pressure sensor 42 will also sense pressure from the blood chamber as it
enters return line 28, Cambron even noting that blockage in the line would
be detected by this sensor 42 (see Cambron, col. 5, ll. 32-36).
Additionally, we are not persuaded by Appellants arguments since
Cambron teaches that “sensors may be positioned around system 130 for
monitoring pressures, flows, temperatures, blood levels, etc. A
microprocessor 194 may be provided to control the three pressure regulators
164, 170 and 180” (Cambron, col. 11, ll. 8-11). The pressure regulators 170
and 180 are both involved in regulating pressure from the reservoir (see FF
6, “at upper and lower locations of the reservoir” (Ans. 3)). Consequently,
when Cambron teaches the use of sensors and a microprocessor to
independently control these two regulators 170 and 180, Cambron is
reasonably construed as teaching two pressure sensors to inform the
microprocessor of the state of the regulators 170 and 180, which are both
involved in regulation of the reservoir pressure (FF 6-7).
We affirm the rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) over
Cambron. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2006), we also affirm the
rejections of claims 7-8 as these claims were not argued separately.
6
Appeal 2008-1845
Application 10/382,692

CONCLUSION
In summary, we affirm the rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. §
102(e) over Cambron. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2006), we
also affirm the rejections of claims 7-8 as these claims were not argued
separately.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv)(2006).
AFFIRMED

lp

POPOVICH, WILES & O'CONNELL, PA
650 THIRD AVENUE SOUTH
SUITE 600
MINNEAPOLIS MN 55402

7