Ex Parte Kothandaraman et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 23, 2016

13104826 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 23, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/104,826 05/10/2011 Sridhar Kothandaraman
45458 7590 02/25/2016
SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/BSC
POBOX2938
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
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.
6279.093US 1 2018
EXAMINER
LEVICKY, WILLIAM J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3762
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/25/2016 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):
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 SRIDHAR KOTHANDARAMAN,
CHRISTOPHER BRITTON GOULD, MUN POOK LUI, and
CHESTER KIM
Appeal2014-000183
Application 13/104,826
Technology Center 3700
Before LYNNE H. BROWNE, JILL D. HILL, and LISA M. GUIJT,
Administrative Patent Judges.
HILL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Sridhar Kothandaraman et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134
from the Examiner's final decision rejecting claims 1-5, 7-16, and 18-24. 1 We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 Claims 6 and 17 have been canceled. See Amendment dated Dec. 12, 2012.
Appeal2014-000183
Application 13/104,826
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Independent claims 1 and 14 are pending. Independent claim 1, reproduced
below, illustrates the claimed subject matter with the key dispute limitation
italicized.
1. An external control device for use with a plurality of electrode
leads implanted within the tissue of a patient, comprising:
a user interface configured for receiving input from a user and
displaying a lead generation icon and virtual electrode leads in a
reference lead configuration; and
at least one processor configured for, in response to the input
from the user, allowing the user to drag and drop objects from the
lead generation icon to generate the virtual leads in the reference lead
configuration, selecting one of the virtual electrode leads, dragging
the selected virtual electrode lead, and dropping the dragged virtual
electrode lead, thereby displaying the virtual electrode leads in a new
lead configuration.
Appeal Br. 7, Claims App.
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1-5, 7-16, and 18-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as anticipated by Goetz (US 2004/0098063 Al, pub. May 20, 2004).2
II. Claims 3 and 4 also stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Goetz.
2 The Examiner's statement of the rejection does not include claims 7-9 (Final
Act. 2); however the discussion of the rejection addresses claims 7-9 (id. at 4--5).
Accordingly, we consider the omission of claims 7-9 from the statement of the
rejection to be a typographical error.
2
Appeal2014-000183
Application 13/104,826
Rejection I
OPINION
Appellants argue claims 1-5, 7-16, and 18-24 as a group. Appeal Br. 4--5.
We select independent claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv)
(2015). Claims 2-5, 7-16, and 18-24 stand or fall with claim 1.
The Examiner finds that Goetz teaches an external control device including,
inter alia, at least one processor allowing the user to drag and drop objects from
the lead generation icon to generate the virtual leads in the reference lead
configuration. Final Act. 3 (citing Goetz i-f 52). According to the Examiner,
"[ w ]hile [paragraph 52] does not explicitly disclose the location of the lead
generation icon, the end result is a lead being generated for the user to drag and
drop on to a graphic of the stimulation area." Ans. 2.
Appellants argue that "Goetz merely discloses dragging and dropping a
graphic of the lead, and does not disclose dragging and dropping objects from a
lead generation icon to generate multiple virtual leads." Appeal Br. 4--5; see also
Reply Br. 2.
Although Goetz may not explicitly recite a lead generation icon, the
Computer Dictionary Online explains in its definition for the term "drag and drop"
that:
The user moves the pointer over an icon representing a file and
presses a mouse button. He holds the button down while moving the
pointer (dragging the file) to another place usually a directory viewer
or an icon for some application program, and then releases the button
(dropping the file).
http://www.computer-dictionary-online.org/? q=drag%20and%20drop (last visited
Feb. 5, 2016). Because Goetz discloses allowing a user to drag and drop a graphic
of a lead on to a graphic of the stimulation area, a person of ordinary skill in the art
3
Appeal2014-000183
Application 13/104,826
would understand that the user selects the graphic of the lead from an icon, i.e., a
lead generation icon, to drag the lead to a graphic of the stimulation area and drop
it. Further, Figure 4 of Goetz shows multiple leads that appear to be the same,
which would suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art that multiple leads are
generated from the same lead generation icon. Thus, we are not persuaded by
Appellants' arguments.
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of claims 1-5, 7-16, and
18-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Goetz.
Rejection II
Appe11ants present no separate argument that claims 3 and 4 would be
patentable over Goetz and instead group these claims with the claims subject to
Rejection L Appeal BL 5. \Ne therefore sustain Rejection II for the reasons
discussed supra with regard to Rejection L
DECISION
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 1-5, 7-16, and 18-24 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Goetz.
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 3 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Goetz.
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