Ex Parte Min

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 7, 2017

13023408 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 7, 2017)

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