Ex Parte MinDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 7, 201713023408 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 7, 2017) 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. 13/023,408 02/08/2011 Xiaoyi Min A11P1009 8637 36802 7590 03/09/2017 PACESETTER, INC. 15900 VALLEY VIEW COURT SYLMAR, CA 91392-9221 EXAMINER BEHRINGER, LUTHER G ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3768 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/09/2017 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 MIN1 Appeal 2014-008747 Application 13/023,408 Technology Center 3700 Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, GEORGE R. HOSKINS, and AMANDA F. WIEKER, Administrative Patent Judges. WIEKER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Xiaoyi Min (“Appellant”) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 According to Appellant, the Real Party in Interest is Pacesetter, Inc. Appeal Br. 2 (filed Feb. 27, 2014). Appeal 2014-008747 Application 13/023,408 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The invention concerns “techniques for assessing stroke volume using implantable devices equipped with multi-pole leads.” Spec. 11. Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal, and recites: 1. A method for use with an implantable medical device for implant within a patient having a lead system including a right ventricular (RV) lead and a multi-pole left ventricular (LV) lead, the method comprising: injecting current between a reference electrode and an electrode in the RV lead; measuring values representative of impedance along different sensing vectors between the reference electrode and each of a plurality of sensing electrodes of the multi-pole LV lead; and estimating a parameter representative of stroke volume within the patient from a combination of the values representative of impedance. Appeal Br. 13 (Claims App.) (emphasis added). Independent claim 19 recites “a current injection system operative to inject current between a reference electrode and a ring electrode in the RV lead,” and independent claim 20 recites “means for injecting current between a reference electrode and a ring electrode in the RV lead.” Id. at 16 (Claims App.). REJECTIONS The claims stand rejected as follows: I. Claims 1^1, 6, 13, 14, 16, and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Lian.2 2 US 2009/0240298 Al, pub. Sept. 24, 2009. 2 Appeal 2014-008747 Application 13/023,408 II. Claims 5 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Lian. III. Claims 7—10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Lian and Belalcazar.3 IV. Claims 11, 12, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Lian and Admitted Prior Art. ANALYSIS With respect to independent claims 1,19, and 20, the Examiner finds that Lian discloses injecting current between reference electrode 40 and RV lead electrode 20. Final Act. 5 (mailed Sept. 6, 2013) (citing generally Lian 42, 59—63, 69, 72, 74, and 77—80 for all limitations of claim 1); see also id. at 6 (findings regarding current injection system of claim 19), 7 (findings regarding means for injecting current of claim 20). Specifically, the Examiner finds that “Lian discloses ‘injecting current between a reference electrode and an electrode in the RV lead’ in at least paragraphs [0042] and [0061]. In particular, Lian states that ‘the measuring unit will be adapted to measure a current strength of a current fed through a body’.” Ans. 3 (mailed May 20, 2014). Appellant contends, inter alia, that “Lian merely discloses the possibility for different electrode configurations for different device operations. . . . Lian simply does not disclose the details of ‘injecting current between a reference electrode and an electrode in the RV lead.’” Appeal Br. 7-8; Reply Br. 3^1 (filed July 21, 2014). 3 US 7,447,543 B2, iss. Nov. 4, 2008. 3 Appeal 2014-008747 Application 13/023,408 We agree with Appellant. None of the portions of Lian cited by the Examiner reasonably discloses the limitations of claims 1, 19, or 20 drawn to injecting current between a reference electrode and an electrode in the RV lead. For example, cited paragraph 42 discloses only that a plurality of electrodes (i.e., electrodes 18, 20, 22, 24, 32, 34, 36, 38, and 40), each of which is located in one of the right atria, right ventricle, or left ventricle, can be used for sensing, pacing, or impedance measurement. Lian 142; see also id. 37-40 (disclosing lead placement within the heart). This portion of Lian does not disclose injecting current between any two specific electrodes, let alone electrodes 40 and 20, as the Examiner finds. See Final Act. 5. Additionally, cited paragraph 61 discloses that, when measuring impedance, a constant voltage source can be provided, and measuring unit 74 will “measure a current strength of a current fed through a body by said constant voltage source.” Id. 1 61. The Examiner does not articulate how this disclosure relates to injecting current between a reference electrode and an RV lead electrode, for example, electrodes 40 and 20, as claimed. We have reviewed the remaining portions of Lian cited by the Examiner, and also find them to be lacking. Neither Belalcazar, which is relied upon with respect to dependent claims 7—10, nor the allegedly Admitted Prior Art, which is relied upon with respect to dependent claims 11, 12, and 15, remedies the deficiency discussed above. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 19, and 20, and the rejections of claims 2—18, which depend from claim 1. 4 Appeal 2014-008747 Application 13/023,408 DECISION The rejections of claims 1—20 are REVERSED. REVERSED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation