Ex Parte Haubrich et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 22, 2014

11460774 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 22, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
__________

Ex parte GREGORY J. HAUBRICH, JAVAID MASOUD, and
CHARLES H. DUDDING1
__________

Appeal 2012-000370
Application 11/460,774
Technology Center 3700
__________

Before TONI R. SCHEINER, ERIC GRIMES, and LORA M. GREEN,
Administrative Patent Judges.

GRIMES, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims to an
implantable medical device (“IMD”) that includes power scaling logic to
adjust the power of the device’s transmitter. The Examiner has rejected the
claims as anticipated. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 Appellants identify the Real Party in Interest as Medtronic, Inc. (App. Br.
3).
Appeal 2012-000370
Application 11/460,774

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
IMDs communicate with external devices (e.g., a programmer) via
wireless signals (Spec. 2, ¶ 5). Operation of “RF communication systems for
IMDs and external communication devices involves a balancing or
compromising of certain countervailing considerations, relating to such
interrelated operational parameters as data transmission rate, transmission
range, IMD power consumption and battery life” (id. at 2, ¶ 6). Transmitting
the signals using more power than necessary wastes transmitter output power
and shortens battery life (id. at 3, ¶ 7). The Specification discloses an IMD
that can optimize its battery life by adjusting the power of its transmitter
“according to the type of telemetry communication device with which the
IMD communicates, according to the IMD type, according to the current
telemetry communication context for the IMD, and/or according to the data
type communicated” (id. at 3, ¶ 9).
The Specification explains that “some telemetry communication
devices (such as a sensor worn by or attached to the patient) will always be
located within a short range of IMD 500, while other telemetry
communication devices (such as a far field programmer or a long range
monitor device) need not be so constrained” (id. at 21, ¶ 54). Likewise, the
IMD type can influence the power adjustment because “some IMDs (such as
a sensor worn by or attached to the patient) will always transmit short range
telemetry communications, while other IMDs need not be so constrained” (id.
at 23, ¶ 57). Finally, the device could adjust the power based on contextual
meaning information, which is “information that is indicative of the type,
purpose, or function of the data to be transmitted by IMD 500” (id. at 25,
Appeal 2012-000370
Application 11/460,774

3
¶ 60). Contextual meaning information can indicate, for example, a priority
or a data type category for the data to be transmitted (id. at 26, ¶¶ 61-62).
Claims 10-19, 29-38, and 45-52 are on appeal. Claims 10, 29, and 45
are the independent claims and read as follows:
10. An implantable medical device (“IMD”) comprising:
power scaling logic configured to process information pertaining to a
telemetry communication device external to the IMD, and configured to
generate scaling instructions in response to the information; and
a transmitter coupled to the power scaling logic and configured to
transmit telemetry signals, the transmitter having variable power
characteristics; wherein
the scaling instructions adjust the variable power characteristics of the
transmitter.

29. An implantable medical device (“IMD”) comprising:
power scaling logic configured to process IMD device type
information for the IMD, the IMD device type information being indicative
of a present telemetry communication context for the IMD, and the power
scaling logic being configured to generate scaling instructions in response to
the IMD device type information; and
a transmitter coupled to the power scaling logic and configured to
transmit telemetry signals, the transmitter having variable power
characteristics; wherein
the scaling instructions adjust the variable power characteristics of the
transmitter.

45. An implantable medical device (“IMD”) comprising:
power scaling logic configured to process contextual meaning
information associated with data to be transmitted by the IMD, and
configured to generate scaling instructions in response to the contextual
meaning information; and
a transmitter coupled to the power scaling logic and configured to
transmit telemetry signals, the transmitter having variable power
characteristics; wherein
the scaling instructions adjust the variable power characteristics of the
transmitter.
Appeal 2012-000370
Application 11/460,774

4
DISCUSSION
The Examiner has rejected all of the claims on appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Goedeke.2 With regard to claim 10, the Examiner
finds that “Goedeke discloses power scaling logic (‘performance goals’,
Col. 10, lines 35-40 and Col. 15, lines 15-20) configured to process
information pertaining to a telemetry communication device external to the
IMD 106/108/110 (‘error detection circuitry’ / ‘signal strength detection
circuitry’ / ‘noise strength detection circuitry’; Fig. 5)” (Ans. 5).
With regard to claim 29, the Examiner finds that
Goedeke discloses power scaling logic (‘performance goals’,
Col. 10, lines 35-40 and Col. 15, lines 15-20) configured to
process information pertaining to a telemetry communication
device external to the IMD 106/108/110 (‘error detection
circuitry’ / ‘signal strength detection circuitry’ / ‘noise strength
detection circuitry’; Fig. 5), the IMD device type information
being indicative of a present telemetry communication context
for the IMD (Col. 10, lines 25-30).
(Id. at 8.)
With regard to claim 45, the Examiner finds that “Goedeke discloses
power scaling logic configured to process contextual meaning information
associated with data to be transmitted by the IMD (Col. 10, lines 22-44), and
configured to generate scaling instructions in response to the contextual
meaning information (‘adjust a number of operational parameters’, Col. 10,
lines 40-41)” (id. at 9).
Appellants argue that Goedeke’s circuits 106/108/110 do not monitor
information pertaining to an external telemetry communication device, as

2 Goedeke et al., U.S. Patent 5,683,432, issued Nov. 4, 1997.
Appeal 2012-000370
Application 11/460,774

5
required by claim 10 (App. Br. 8), nor are they “power scaling logic
configured to process IMD device type information for the IMD as recited,
for example, in claim 29” (id. at 9). Appellants also argue that “the cited
text in Goedeke fails to support an interpretation of a disclosure of the
contextual meaning information associated with data to be transmitted by the
IMD recited in claim 45” (id. at 11).
We agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not pointed to
evidence sufficient to support the finding that Goedeke discloses all of the
limitations of the rejected claims. Goedeke discloses an IMD “for
establishing and maintaining an optimized communication link between two
or more electronic devices, such as between implanted medical devices and
external programming/control units” (Goedeke, col. 9, l. 67 to col. 10, l. 4).
Goedeke’s device includes “circuitry for monitoring various operational
parameters” (id. at col. 10, ll. 7-8), as well as “control circuitry and
operational parameter adjustment circuitry for dynamically adjusting
multiple interrelated operational parameters of the communication link, such
that system performance goals are met” (id. at col. 10, ll. 10-13).
Appeal 2012-000370
Application 11/460,774

6
Goedeke’s Figure 5 is reproduced below:

Figure 5 shows “a simplified block diagram of communication
subsystem 34 from pacemaker 10 . . . [and] an even more simplified block
diagram of a communication subsystem 100 associated with external
programming unit 20” (id. at col. 16, ll. 21-26).
Communication subsystem 34 includes “error detection circuitry 106,
signal strength detection circuitry 108, and noise strength detection circuitry
110” (id. at col. 16, ll. 36-39). “[C]ircuits 106, 108 and 110 are in turn
coupled to a control circuit 112” (id. at col. 16, ll. 64-65). “[C]ontrol circuit
112 is coupled to a transmitter power control circuit 114, such that under
command of control circuit 112, the power of signals transmitted by
transmitter 104 can be adjusted up or down” (id. at col. 17, ll. 7-10).
Appeal 2012-000370
Application 11/460,774

7
“[C]ommunication subsystems 34 and 100 are preferably, capable of
exchanging information with each other . . . . For example, if signal strength
detector circuit 108 in subsystem 34 determines that the received signal
transmitted from transmitter 120 is unacceptably weak, control circuitry 112
can . . . instruct[ ] transmitter 120 to increase its transmission power.” (Id. at
col. 18, ll. 25-33.) Alternatively, “signal strength detector circuit 108 . . .
may determine that the strength of the signal received by receiver 102
exceeds some predetermined minimum level. In that case, control circuit
112 can cause transmitter 104 to transmit an instruction to transmitter 100 in
external unit 20 to . . . decrease transmission power for transmitter 120.”
(Id. at col. 19, ll. 26-32.) Goedeke also states that “under command of
control circuit 112, data rate circuit 116 can adjust the data transmission rate
of transmitter 104 up or down. Additional operational parameters which
may be adjusted include the power level of the transmission.” (Id. at col. 18,
ll. 39-42.)
Thus, although Goedeke discloses adjusting the power level of the
transmitter in its IMD, it does not describe doing so according to
“information pertaining to a telemetry communication device external to the
IMD” as required by claim 10, or according to “IMD device type
information for the IMD . . . indicative of a present telemetry
communication context for the IMD” as required by claim 29, or according
to “contextual meaning information associated with data to be transmitted by
the IMD” as required by claim 45.
The Examiner interprets Goedeke’s system performance circuits
(elements 106, 108, and 110) as the power scaling logic of claims 10 and 29
Appeal 2012-000370
Application 11/460,774

8
(Ans. 5, 8) on the basis that those circuits “are monitoring information from
the external device in order to set up dynamically adjustable parameters, i.e.
performance goals” (id. at 5). As Appellants point out, however, the system
performance circuits monitor the quality of the signal received by Goedeke’s
IMD. The Examiner has not shown that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would reasonably interpret the error rate, signal strength, or noise strength
detected by Goedeke’s system performance circuits to be any of the types of
information recited in claims 10, 29, and 45.
The Examiner also points to two patents that are incorporated by
reference in Goedeke (Ans. 10-11) but cites them only for their disclosure of
sending data between an implanted device and an external device. The
Examiner has not explained how that well-known technique inherently
includes scaling the power of an IMD’s transmitter according to any of the
types of information recited in claims 10, 29, and 45.
SUMMARY
We reverse the rejection of claims 10-19, 29-38, and 45-52 as
anticipated by Goedeke.

REVERSED

lp