Ex Parte MacAdam et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 27, 2011

11120633 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 27, 2011)

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.
11/120,633 05/02/2005 David P. MacAdam 1780/0162-US1 1472
76808 7590 09/28/2011
Leason Ellis LLP
One Barker Avenue
Fifth Floor
White Plains, NY 10601-1526
EXAMINER
GEDEON, BRIAN T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3766
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/28/2011 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte DAVID P. MACADAM, MINORU MASHIMO,
SYLVAIN FANIER, TIM COLLINS, DING S. HE, and
REMI DUBOIS
____________________

Appeal 2009-014078
Application 11/120,633
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before: WILLIAM F. PATE III, STEFAN STAICOVICI, and
FRED A. SILVERBERG, Administrative Patent Judges.

PATE III, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-014078
Application 11/120,633
2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims
27-51. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

The claims are directed to high density atrial fibrillation cycle length
(afcl) detection and mapping system. Claim 27, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
27. An ablation and mapping procedure, comprising the
steps of:
percutaneously advancing a catheter into at least one
heart chamber, the catheter having multiple electrodes
supported along a distal portion thereof;
associating in a memory of a machine one or more
locations of the electrodes within the at least one heart chamber;
capturing electrocardiogram signals associated with at
least one electrode of the catheter at one or more of the
locations for at least a prescribed time period;
for at least a portion of the captured electrocardiogram
signals over at least the prescribed time period, transforming
the electrogram signal into a frequency domain representation;
associating at least one frequency domain representation
with the location of the electrode at which the transformed
electrogram signal was captured; and
outputting at least one frequency domain representation
and its associated location on a display.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Seegobin
Beatty
US 6,223,073 B1
US 6,990,370 B1
Apr. 24, 2001
Jan. 24, 2006

Appeal 2009-014078
Application 11/120,633
3
REJECTION
Claim 27-51 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Beatty and Seegobin. Ans. 4.
A rejection of claims 27 and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 has been
withdrawn by the Examiner. Ans. 5-6.
We note that Appellants argue that the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection has
been interpreted as running to claims 29-51. Br. 11. This is an error on the
part of the Appellants. Both the prior Office Action and Answer reflect that
the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is to claims 27-51, and these are the
claims that we have considered as rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the rejection on appeal in light of the
arguments of the Appellants and the Examiner. As a result of this review we
have reached the conclusion that the applied prior art establishes the prima
facie obviousness of the claims on appeal. Therefore the rejection of the
claims on appeal is affirmed. Our reasons follow.
The following comprises our findings of fact with respect to the scope
and content of the prior art and the differences between the prior art and the
claimed subject matter. We agree with the Examiner that Beatty is directed
to visualizing electrical activities occurring in the patient’s heart. See col. 1,
ll. 16-18. Notably Beatty can display both a visual map of the underlying
electrical activity in a chamber of the patient’s heart and the location of a
therapy catheter located within the heart chamber. Col. 1, ll. 18-20. The
Examiner refers to claim 2 of Beatty where the last clause of the claim
specifies a graphical display of the location data for the locator electrodes.
The generation and graphical display of a catheter in a heart chamber are
Appeal 2009-014078
Application 11/120,633
4
also discussed. Col. 12, ll. 33-35; and Fig. 15, steps 21 and 23. Therefore it
is our finding that Beatty contemplates graphically displaying both the
locator electrode location and the treatment or therapeutic catheter electrode
location. Thus we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Beatty
substantially describes the invention except for the claimed frequency
domain representation on the display at the electrode locations. See Ans. 4.
Seegobin discloses displaying frequency domain representations as
shown in Figures 7bX, 7bY, and 7bZ. Note that these representations are
displayed with a heading which identifies the lead from which the frequency
bands are obtained. Seegobin further mentions that his method is not limited
to the X-Y-Z leads but can display the frequency domain representation of
12, 16, or 24 or more leads. Col. 17, ll. 48-63. Inasmuch as the Seegobin
frequency domain representations are displayed with a label or origin
identifying the lead from which the domain has been measured, and
inasmuch as Beatty discloses a graphical dynamic display of electrode
location, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to
display the frequency domain representations at the displayed locations of
the moveable electrodes as taught by Beatty. This is merely the combination
of two prior art techniques used together to achieve predictable results.
Appellants argue that Beatty uses the term “frequency domain” in an
inartful manner, and Beatty does not teach frequency domain
representations. Br. 5-7. Although we agree that Beatty does not teach
frequency domain representations, it is apparent to us that the Examiner is
relying on the disclosure in Beatty for the graphical display of location data.
Thus it is immaterial whether Beatty discloses frequency domain
calculations, inasmuch as Beatty does teach a display output which
graphically represents a chamber of the heart and the location of therapeutic
Appeal 2009-014078
Application 11/120,633
5
or location electrodes. Thus we agree with Appellants that the frequency
information described by Beatty is used to display location data of the
roving therapeutic catheter and no more. Br. 8. In our view, this is the only
teaching that the Examiner is relying on from the Beatty patent. We agree
with Appellants that the location is the output and that there is no further use
of frequency domain information.
We also agree with Appellants when they argue that Seegobin
mentions that the EC data can be displayed as frequency domain spectra,
however there is no teaching nor suggestion of how such spectra is to be
represented as a map on the basis of electrode location. Br. 12. This is
taught in the Beatty patent as we have discussed previously. The argument
that there is no graphical location display in Seegobin is merely an
individual attack on the Seegobin patent where the rejection is based on a
combination of Beatty and Seegobin.

DECISION
The rejection of claims 27-51 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

nlk