Ex Parte Lahti et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 24, 2013

10632026 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 24, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
__________

Ex parte JAY LAHTI, ANDREW J. RIES,
and SCOTT FORSYTHE
__________

Appeal 2012-002768
Application 10/632,026
Technology Center 3700
__________

Before DEMETRA J. MILLS, ERIC GRIMES, 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
connector assembly for detachably connecting a lead to an implantable
medical device. The Examiner rejected the claims as obvious. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.

Appeal 2012-002768
Application 10/632,026

2
Statement of the Case
Background
“The present invention relates to medical leads of implantable medical
devices and, more particularly, to a connector assembly of an implantable
medical device that facilitates coupling between a lead and circuitry of the
implantable medical device” (Spec. 1 ¶ 0003).
The Claims
Claims 1, 3-17, 19-33, and 35-48 are on appeal. Claim 1 is
representative and reads as follows:
1. A connector assembly for detachably connecting a lead to an
implantable medical device, comprising:
a connector block having a connector port to receive a proximal
end of a lead inserted therein along an insertion axis of orientation;
a deflectable connector clip including a first arm, a second arm,
and a top portion extending between the first arm and the second arm,
the connector clip capable of being deflected, prior to insertion of the
lead, from a first position corresponding to a first relative position of
the first arm and the second arm to a second position corresponding to
a second relative position of the first arm and the second arm; and
a housing mounted within the connector block, the housing
having a first annular member and a second annular member, the first
member formed to be fixedly engaged with the second member to
form an aperture in alignment with the connector port to receive the
lead proximal end along the insertion axis, the connector clip being
enclosed within the housing, wherein the connector clip is positioned
within one of the first member and the second member while in the
second position, wherein the first arm extends from the top portion to
a first end and the second arm extends from the top portion to a
second end, and wherein the connector clip includes a first side wall
along the first end and a second side wall along the second end, the
end of the first arm and the end of the second arm being offset and
partially overlapping so that the first side wall is adjacent to and
engaged against the second side wall when the connector clip is in the
Appeal 2012-002768
Application 10/632,026

3
first position, and the first arm and the second arm being partially
spread apart so that the ends are non-overlapping and aligned so that
the first end abuts the second end and the first side wall is not adjacent
to and engaged against the second side wall when the connector clip is
in the second position, the connector clip being oriented perpendicular
to the insertion axis of orientation of the proximal end of a lead such
that the arms, the non-overlapping ends of the arms, and the top
portion together circumscribe an opening through which the proximal
end of a lead passes during insertion.

The issue
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3-17, 19-33, and 35-48 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Lim
1
and Anscher
2
(Ans. 4-7).
The Examiner finds that “Lim discloses the claimed invention except
for the offset and partially overlapping free ends” of the connector clip (id.
at 7). The Examiner that “Anscher et al. discloses an engagement clip with
and without overlapping ends” (id.). The Examiner finds it obvious “to
modify the free ends of the clip in Lim to overlap as taught by Anscher et al.
in order to provide the predictable results of reinforcement to support and
engage a lead” (id.).
The issue with respect to this rejection is: Does the evidence of
record support the Examiner’s conclusion that Lim and Anscher render
claim 1 obvious?

1
Lim, W., US 5,769,671, issued Jun. 23, 1998.
2
Anscher et al., US 4,566,660, issued Jan. 28, 1986.
Appeal 2012-002768
Application 10/632,026

4
Findings of Fact
1. Figures 3A-D of the Specification are reproduced below:

“FIG. 3A is a plan view of a connector clip utilized in a connector assembly
of the present invention in a non-deflected position; FIG. 3B is a side view
of the connector clip of FIG. 3A; FIG. 3C is a plan view of a connector clip
utilized in a connector assembly of the present invention in a partially
deflected position; FIG. 3D is a side view of the connector clip of FIG. 3C”
(Spec. 3 ¶¶ 0014-0017).
Appeal 2012-002768
Application 10/632,026

5
2. Lim teaches that “contact spring 2 is formed from a stamped,
formed sheet metal strip . . . and is bent in the illustrated square shaped
configuration . . . . [T]his spring 2 has a thickness of about 0.003 inches and
is a generally closed shape member defined by opposed free ends 31 and 33,
which in the relaxed condition, define a gap referenced in FIG. 5 as 29”
(Lim, col. 4, ll. 24-31).
3. Figure 5 is reproduced below:

“FIG. 5 is a plan view of the contact spring element shown apart from the
connector assembly” (Lim, col. 2, ll. 66-67).
4. The Examiner finds that “Lim discloses the claimed invention
except for the offset and partially overlapping free ends. Anscher et al.
discloses an engagement clip with and without overlapping ends (see figures
4 and 5” (Ans. 7).
Appeal 2012-002768
Application 10/632,026

6
5. Figures 4 and 5 of Anscher are reproduced below:

“FIG. 4 is a side plan view of a cradle clip according to the present invention
holding a circular conduit having a push pin type mounting means. FIG. 5 is
a side plan view of an embodiment of the cradle clip according to the present
invention which is adapted to snugly hold a plurality of conduits” (Anscher,
col. 3, ll. 49-54).
Principles of Law
“An examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case
of obviousness.” In re Huai-Hung Kao, 639 F.3d 1057, 1066 (Fed. Cir.
2011).
“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere
conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning
Appeal 2012-002768
Application 10/632,026

7
with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
Analysis
Claim 1 imposes two different requirements on the clips, a first state
where the clips have ends which are offset and partially overlap, and a
second state where the ends do not overlap and instead abut. We agree with
Appellants that “[l]ike the clip in Lim, the overlapping free ends of the clip
in Anscher are never disclosed as abutting one another in the second position
when located in a housing” (App. Br. 7).
Indeed, Lim never teaches the free ends of the clip/spring as abutting,
simply showing them spaced apart by gap 29 in Figure 5 (FF 2-3).
Similarly, Figure 4 of Anscher also shows the ends of the clips spaced apart
by a gap.
While Figure 5 of Anscher does show the clips as either abutting or
overlapping, Figure 5 cannot teach both requirements of claim 1 for the
clips. If Figure 5 is interpreted as showing clips with ends which are
abutting, there is no teaching in either Anscher or Lim of clips with ends
which are offset and partially overlap, the first state required by claim 1.
Alternatively, if Figure 5 is viewed as showing offset clips with ends which
partially overlap (though we do not see how the ends in figure 5 are
“offset”), then there is no teaching of clips with ends which are abutting.
Consequently, this is not a situation like Keller, where the prior art
separately teaches all of the elements and the issue is whether they can be
properly combined. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Instead,
this is simply a situation where the prior art does not teach all of the
Appeal 2012-002768
Application 10/632,026

8
elements required by claim 1, so that there is no prima facie case of
obviousness.
Conclusion of Law
The evidence of record does not support the Examiner’s conclusion
that Lim and Anscher render claim 1 obvious.
SUMMARY
In summary, we reverse the rejection of claims 1, 3-17, 19-33, and 35-
48 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Lim and Anscher.

REVERSED

cdc