Ex Parte RahmeDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 19, 201612099225 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 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. 12/099,225 04/08/2008 Marc Mounir Rahme 3845 7590 12/19/2016 Maro M Rahme. EXAMINER 7 Wild acre Lane GIULIANI, THOMAS ANTHONY Ottawa, ON K2K 1X7 CANADA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3739 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/19/2016 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 MARC MOUNIR RAHME Appeal 2014-009704 Application 12/099,225 Technology Center 3700 Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, LYNNE H. BROWNE, and BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges. BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Marc Mounir Rahme (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims 1—3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appeal 2014-009704 Application 12/099,225 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method of treating the recurrence of atrial arrhythmias, by delivering energy via catheter ablation to specific areas of the epicardium, the method comprising the steps of: Inserting an electrophysiology ablation catheter having a tip section with an ablation electrode pointed toward the right or left atrial epicardium and directing the catheter to specific autonomic nerve structure; detecting the anatomic location of the earliest autonomic atrial activation signals which triggers the onset of atrial fibrillation episodes such as occurrence of transit atrial extra beats, complex fractionated atrial electrogram, high frequency or low amplitude electro grams by using the Fast Fournier Transform spectral analysis or by using point-by-point contact mapping analysis; stabilizing the ablation electrode at said epicardial nerve structure; eliminating the motion artifacts (cardiac, respiratory,) which are affecting the accuracy of the positions of the tip- electrodes by using cardio-map acquisition software based on filtering/correcting specifically the autonomic signals from all motion artifacts or by using analysis of variance methods; delivering effective energy through the electrode sufficient to attenuate the electrophysiological autonomic signals generated by this area causing the recurrence and the perpetuation of said atrial arrhythmias; and re-detecting the autonomic nervous signals at this same specific nerve arrhythmic’ area in order to assure (/test) the complete attenuation of their autonomic atrial activation signals, thus preventing the recurrence of said atrial fibrillation. 2 Appeal 2014-009704 Application 12/099,225 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Oral US 2005/0033137 A1 Feb. 10, 2005 Swanson US 2007/0156185 A1 Jul. 5, 2007 Sih US 2008/0208271 A1 Aug. 28, 2008 REJECTIONS I. Claims 1—3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. II. Claims 1—3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as indefinite. III. Claims 1—3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Oral. IV. Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a and e) as anticipated by Swanson. V. Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Sih. VI. Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Swanson and Oral. VII. Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sih and Oral. DISCUSSION The Appeal Brief does not address any of the rejections set forth by the Examiner. See, generally, Appeal Br. Rather, the Appeal Brief summarizes prosecution up until the Appeal, discusses Appellant’s research 3 Appeal 2014-009704 Application 12/099,225 project, and discusses Appellant’s attempts to comply with the Examiner’s requirements. Id. The Appeal Brief does not explain how the Specification provides support for the claim limitations rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, it does not explain why the claim limitations rejected as indefinite would be understood by one skilled in the art, and it does not address any of the cited prior art. As such, the Appeal Brief does not apprise us of error in any of the pending rejections. “The arguments shall explain why the examiner erred as to each ground of rejection contested by appellant.” 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(iv). The Reply Brief essentially repeats Appellant’s description of his research project. In addition, to the extent that Appellant’s new discussion of Oral constitutes arguments, such arguments are not timely because, lacking a showing of good cause, we do not consider arguments raised in the Reply Brief which are not responsive to an argument raised in the Answer. 37 C.F.R. §41.41 (b)(2). We are mindful of the difficulties pro se applicants face in the complex area of patent law and practice. However, we agree that the Examiner established a sound and unrebutted legal basis for rejecting the claims now before us. Rejections of claims for failing to comply with the particular requirements of Title 35 do not necessarily reflect on the value or merit of Appellant’s invention or discovery. We summarily sustain Rejections I—VII. DECISION The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—3 are AFFIRMED. 4 Appeal 2014-009704 Application 12/099,225 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