Ex Parte Ryu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 13, 2016

12607817 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 13, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/607,817 10/28/2009
36802 7590 04/15/2016
PACESETTER, INC
15900 VALLEY VIEW COURT
SYLMAR, CA 91392-9221
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Kyungmoo Ryu
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
A09Pl054 5258
EXAMINER
MALAMUD, DEBORAH LESLIE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3766
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/15/2016 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@sjm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KYUNGMOO RYU, STUART ROSENBERG, and
ALLEN KEEL
Appeal2014-000697
Application 12/607,817
Technology Center 3700
Before NEALE. ABRAMS, CHARLES N. GREENHUT, and
LISA M. GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judges.
GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1,
2, 5-16, and 18-26. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
The claims are directed to systems and methods for optimizing multi-
site left ventricular pacing based on interelectrode conduction delays. Claim
1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
Appeal2014-000697
Application 12/607,817
1. A method for use with an implantable cardiac stimulation
device equipped for multi-site left ventricular (MSL V) pacing
using a multi-pole L V lead, the method comprising:
determining MSL V interelectrode conduction delays between
detection of events at different L V electrodes from a plurality of
LV electrodes of the multi-pole LV lead;
setting MSLV interelectrode pacing delays based on the
MSL V interelectrode conduction delays for use in delivering
MSL V pacing along corresponding pacing vectors using the
multi-pole L V lead; and
controlling MSL V pacing for the corresponding pacmg
vectors using the MSL V interelectrode pacing delays.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Mongeon
Kramer
US 2006/0155338 Al
US 2008/0097536 Al
REJECTIONS
July 13, 2006
Apr. 24, 2008
Claims 1, 2, 5, 8-16, 1 18, 20-22, and 24--26 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Mongeon. Final Act. 4.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Mongeon in view of Kramer. Final Act. 7.
Claims 19 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Mongeon. Final Act. 8.
1 The Examiner apparently inadvertently included claim 17 in this rejection
even though both the Examiner and Appellants acknowledge claim 1 7 stands
withdrawn. Final Act. 1; App. Br. 3.
2
Appeal2014-000697
Application 12/607,817
OPINION
Regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner found Mongeon
discloses "setting MSL V interelectrode pacing delays based on the MSL V
interelectrode conduction delays." Final Act. 5, Ans. 8-9. The Examiner
relies on a single recitation in Mongeon of the disclosed testing being "used
to optimize CRT delivery and monitor the patients for any clinically relevant
prolongation or shortening of the intra-ventricular delay" to link the
resynchronization therapy with the claimed interelectrode conduction delay.
Ans. 8-9, citing Mongeon, para. 65.
It is unclear how the cited disclosure of a connection between pacing
threshold testing and optimizing CRT delivery meets the recited limitation
of "setting MSL V interelectrode pacing delays based on the MSL V
interelectrode conduction delays." At most, Mongeon discloses monitoring
intraventricular delays. Mongeon, para. 65. The Examiner appears to be
reading too much into the cited clause, equating optimization of CRT
delivery with the setting of interelectrode pacing delays based, presumably,
on the monitored intraventricular delay. This is an unsubstantiated
interpretation of Mongeon. As Appellants correctly argue, the CRT therapy
is optimized based on determining capture thresholds. Br. 6, citing
Mongeon, para. 14. Appellants also correctly point out that the capture
thresholds deal with amplitude levels while the claims relate to timing
intervals. Br. 8. Mongeon therefore deals with setting capture thresholds,
not with setting time delays. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 is
reversed.
The Examiner rejected independent claims 15 and 18 concurrently
with claim 1, relying on the same unsupported finding. Final Act. 4. For the
3
Appeal2014-000697
Application 12/607,817
reasons discussed in reference to claim 1, the rejection of claims 15 and 18 is
also reversed.
The rejections of claims 2, 5-14, 16, 19, and 20-26 are reversed due
to their dependency on claims 1, 15, and 18.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections are reversed.
REVERSED
4