Ex Parte MinDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 22, 201613647300 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 22, 2016) Copy Citation 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. 13/647,300 10/08/2012 Xiaoyi Min A12P1043 9442 36802 7590 12/27/2016 PACESETTER, INC. 15900 VALLEY VIEW COURT SYLMAR, CA 91392-9221 EXAMINER FLORY, CHRISTOPHER A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3762 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/27/2016 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): Patent.CRMDSylmar@sjm.com lcancino-zepeda@sjm.com epineiro @ sj m. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte XIAOYI MIN Appeal 2015-001957 Application 13/647,300 Technology Center 3700 Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, BRETT C. MARTIN, and BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges. GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1— 9 and 11—18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appeal 2015-001957 Application 13/647,300 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a leadless intra-cardiac medical device. Spec., para. 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A leadless intra-cardiac medical device, comprising: a housing comprising an exterior surface and defining an interior space; an inductor-capacitor resonant circuit located within the interior space defined by the housing, wherein the inductor- capacitor circuit comprises an inductive circuit and a flexible capacitive circuit electrically coupled in parallel; a flexible material located adjacent the exterior surface of the housing and engaged with the flexible capacitive circuit to couple pressure waves to the flexible capacitive circuit; at least one electrode located adjacent the exterior surface of the housing; and a circuit located within the interior space defined by the housing and electrically coupled to the inductor-capacitor resonant circuit and to the at least one electrode, wherein the circuit is configured to: process signals received from the inductor-capacitor resonant circuit to generate data representative of the pressure waves, generate cardiac stimulation pulses for application via the at least one electrode based on control information, and communicate via radiofrequency signaling with an external device to send the data to the external device and to receive the control information from the external device. The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on REFERENCES appeal is: Fonseca Woodard Overall O'Brien US 2005/0015014 A1 Jan. 20, 2005 US 2006/0124740 A1 June 15, 2006 US 2007/0032749 A1 Feb. 8, 2007 US 2009/0030291 A1 Jan. 29, 2009 2 Appeal 2015-001957 Application 13/647,300 Yadav US 2010/0262021 A1 Oct. 14, 2010 REJECTIONS Claims 1, 3, 4, 6—9, 14, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Overall. Claims 2, 11—13, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Overall or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Overall and Yadav or O’Brien, or Fonseca Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Overall or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Overall and Woodard. Claims 17 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Overall, or Overall and Yadav or Fonseca. OPINION Appellant’s arguments are premised entirely on the patentability of claim 1. Br. 6—9. Appellant quotes certain portions of claim 1 (Br. 6), but then, as the Examiner points out (Ans. 3, 4), goes on to advance arguments that do not identify or appear to relate to the specific language of claim 1. Br. 6—9. The first assertion by Appellant regarding a perceived deficiency in Overall that we are able to identify in Appellant’s briefing is that Overall does not provide pressure measurements. Br. 8. In addition to correctly pointing out that this is not what claim 1 recites (Ans. 3) the Examiner again points to Figure 8(b) and the corresponding discussion at paragraph 108 of Overall (Final Act. 2; Ans. 4) which, in relevant part, provides that the 3 Appeal 2015-001957 Application 13/647,300 capacitor 804 may be actuated by, among other things, fluid pressure. The Examiner’s finding in this regard stands uncontroverted. The next argument that we identify in Appellant’s brief is an allegation that Overall does not deliver pacing pulses in response to measured pressures. Br. 8—9. The Examiner again correctly points out that this argument is not commensurate with the actual language of claim 1 (Ans. 3, 4) and refers to the discussion in, among others, paragraphs 24 and 28 of Overall. The cited paragraphs, in relevant part, indicate that Overall’s motion analysis element may be integrated into a pacemaker (para. 24), i.e., a device that delivers stimulation pulses, and more specifically, that the sensed signals are processed to provide an output that may take the form of a cardiac pacing signal (para. 28). The Examiner’s findings in this regard again stand uncontroverted. Under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(iv) it is Appellant’s burden to “explain why the examiner erred as to each ground of rejection contested by appellant.” The Examiner has identified where or how each limitation of the rejected claims is met by the prior art references and Appellant has not apprised us of any error in the Examiner’s analysis. In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 2011). DECISION The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—9 and 11—18 are affirmed. 4 Appeal 2015-001957 Application 13/647,300 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)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation