Ex Parte Parker

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 19, 2013

11099733 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 19, 2013)

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.
11/099,733 04/06/2005 Fred T. Parker 12730/100
(PA-5515-RFB)
2113
48003 7590 02/19/2013
BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE/CHICAGO/COOK
PO BOX 10395
CHICAGO, IL 60610
EXAMINER
TYSON, MELANIE RUANO
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3773
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/19/2013 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
__________

Ex parte FRED T. PARKER
__________

Appeal 2011-004642
Application 11/099,733
Technology Center 3700
__________

Before ERIC GRIMES, FRANCISCO C. PRATS, and
JACQUELINE WRIGHT BONILLA, Administrative Patent Judges.

GRIMES, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims to a stent
deployment system, which have been rejected for obviousness. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Specification discloses a stent deployment system in which a
flexible tube extends from a handle and through a flexible sheath, and
terminates in a tapered extension (Spec. 6, ¶ 21; Fig. 3). The proximal end
of the deployment system includes a hub and a rigid tube connected inside
Appeal 2011-004642
Application 11/099,733

2
the handle to the flexible tube (id. at 8-9, ¶¶ 33-34), which allows “the
flexible tube 128 [to] be moved relative to the flexible sheath 108 by
changing the position of the hub 104 relative to the handle 118” (id. at 9,
¶ 34).
The flexible tube has a “thrust block” coupled to it near its distal end,
and a stent surrounding the flexible tube distal to the thrust block (id. at 7,
¶ 23; Fig. 4). The Specification states that, when a clinician pushes the
flexible tube and its attached thrust block in the distal direction, the thrust
block traverses the distance between it and the stent, which “allows the
clinician to fill [sic, feel] the contact between the thrust block 140 and the
endoluminal prosthesis 120 before the endoluminal prosthesis 120 begins
expanding” (id. at 12, ¶ 42). The tapered extension facilitates withdrawal of
the flexible tube through the lumen of the stent after expansion (id. at 12,
¶ 43).
Claims 8-21 are on appeal. Claim 8 is representative and reads as
follows:
8. A stent deployment system, comprising:
a handle,
a flexible sheath coupled to the handle,
a flexible tube extending into the handle and through the sheath
about a longitudinal axis,
a tapered flexible extension coupled to the flexible tube, the
tapered extension having a continuous reverse taper from a maximum
diameter of the tapered flexible extension to an outer diameter of the
flexible tube, the reverse taper facing toward the handle,
an endoluminal prosthesis disposed about the flexible tube,
having a proximal end and a distal end, and
a distally advanceable thrust block coupled to and
circumferentially surrounding the flexible tube, the thrust block
disposed a longitudinal distance away from the proximal end of said
Appeal 2011-004642
Application 11/099,733

3
prosthesis, providing tactile feedback to an operator when contact
between the thrust block and said prosthesis is made after distal
movement of the thrust block.

The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as follows:
• Claims 8, 12, 17, and 18 based on Thompson,
1
Goicoechea,
2
and
Ravenscroft
3
(Answer 3);
• Claims 9-11, 14-16, and 19-21 based on Thompson, Goicoechea,
Ravenscroft, and Duerig
4
(Answer 5); and
• Claim 13 based on Thompson, Goicoechea, Ravenscroft, and Patel
5

(Answer 6).
The same issue is dispositive with respect to all of the rejections. The
Examiner finds that Thompson discloses a stent deployment system that
includes, among other elements, a flexible tube with “an endoluminal
prosthesis (18) disposed about the tube, a distally advanceable thrust block
(32) . . . , disposed about the flexible tube (for example, see Figure 1), and
disposed a sufficient longitudinal distance from the proximal end of the
prosthesis to provide tactile feedback when distal movement causes contact
with the prosthesis” (Answer 3-4). The Examiner finds that Goicoechea and
Ravenscroft would have made obvious the limitations of the tapered
extension recited in the claims (id. at 4-5).

1
Thompson et al., US 5,957,974, issued Sept. 28, 1999.
2
Goicoechea et al., US 5,693,086, issued Dec. 2, 1997.
3
Ravenscroft et al., US 5,824, 058, issued Oct. 20, 1998.
4
Duerig et al., US 6,287,329 B1, issued Sept. 11, 2001.
5
Patel et al., US 4,055,187, issued Oct. 25, 1977.
Appeal 2011-004642
Application 11/099,733

4
Appellant argues that Thompson does not disclose a distally
advanceable thrust block (Appeal Br. 12-14) or providing tactile feedback
(id. at 16-19) and Goicoechea and Ravenscroft do not make up for these
deficiencies (id. at 15-16, 20).
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not established that
Thompson discloses “a distally advanceable thrust block . . . providing
tactile feedback to an operator when contact between the thrust block and
[the] prosthesis is made after distal movement of the thrust block,” as
required by claim 8. Because contact between the thrust block and the
prosthesis occurs after distal movement of the thrust block, the claim
requires the thrust block to be “distally advanceable” relative to the
prosthesis. The Examiner shares this interpretation (see Answer 7: “thrust
block (32) is distally advanceable with respect to the prosthesis and retaining
tube as recited in the claims”).
Thompson’s Figure 1 is shown below:

Figure 1 shows “a deployment device 16 for delivering a stent graft
18” (Thompson, col. 6, ll. 34-35). “The device includes an elongate and
flexible outer catheter 20. . . . An inner catheter 26 . . . runs along the entire
length of the outer catheter. At the distal end of inner catheter 26 is a
tapered distal tip 28.” (Id. at col. 6, ll. 43-46.) “An annular detent 32,
Appeal 2011-004642
Application 11/099,733

5
mounted to inner catheter 26, occupies a space between the inner and outer
catheters to limit proximal travel of the stent graft relative to the inner
catheter. As outer catheter 20 is moved proximally relative to inner catheter
26, the detent prevents the stent graft from following the outer catheter.”
(Id. at col. 6, ll. 56-61.)
Thompson discloses that its stent graft is deployed as follows: “Once
the stent graft is positioned as intended, inner catheter 26 is held stationary
while outer catheter 20 is withdrawn proximally. Inner catheter 26, due to
detent 32, maintains the stent graft properly aligned as it progressively
radially self-expands toward an intimate contact with tissue at the treatment
site.” (Id. at col. 6, l. 64 to col. 7, l. 1.)
Thus, Thompson’s system deploys its stent graft by proximal
movement of outer catheter 20, which corresponds to the “flexible sheath”
of claim 8. The Examiner has not pointed to any structure in Thompson’s
system that would allow distal movement of inner catheter 26 or its attached
detent 32, which correspond respectively to the “flexible tube” and “thrust
block” of claim 8, relative to stent graft 18.
Although the Examiner asserts that “the thrust block (32) is distally
advanceable with respect to the prosthesis” (Answer 7), she has not pointed
to evidence that supports that position, nor provided a reasonable basis for
concluding that distal movement relative to the prosthesis would have been
an inherent property of Thompson’s system. For the same reason, the
Examiner has not provided an adequate basis for finding that Thompson’s
system “provid[es] tactile feedback to an operator when contact between the
Appeal 2011-004642
Application 11/099,733

6
thrust block and said prosthesis is made after distal movement of the thrust
block,” as required by claim 8.
Claim 12, the only other independent claim, includes the same
relevant limitations. The Examiner has pointed to nothing in Goicoechea or
Ravenscroft that remedies these deficiencies. We therefore reverse the
rejection of claims 8, 12, 17, and 18 based on Thompson, Goicoechea, and
Ravenscroft. The Examiner also has not pointed to any disclosure in Duerig
or Patel that makes up for the deficiencies of Thompson, and therefore we
reverse the other rejections on appeal as well.
SUMMARY
We reverse all of the rejections on appeal.

REVERSED

cdc