Ex Parte Sage

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 8, 2013

11799167 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 8, 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.
11/799,167 05/01/2007 Shahn S. Sage 134.02810101 5791
26813 7590 02/08/2013
MUETING, RAASCH & GEBHARDT, P.A.
P.O. BOX 581336
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55458-1336
EXAMINER
OSINSKI, BRADLEY JAMES
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3767
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/08/2013 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 SHAHN S. SAGE
__________

Appeal 2011-002674
Application 11/799,167
Technology Center 3700
__________

Before TONI R. SCHEINER, DEMETRA J. MILLS, and
JEFFREY N. FREDMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

FREDMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims to a catheter
connection system. The Examiner rejected the claims as obvious. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.

Appeal 2011-002674
Application 11/799,167

2
Statement of the Case
Background
“The present invention provides catheter connectors, connection
systems, and methods in which a catheter is attached to an offset connector
such that the catheter is retained on the connector by compression between a
tube located within the catheter and a collar fitted over the portion of the
catheter containing the tube” (Spec. 2 ¶ 06). “Due to the offset between the
tube and the collar passage, the catheter may be differentially compressed on
opposing sides of the tube.” (Spec. 2-3 ¶ 07.) “Misalignment of the
connector can result in a weakened connection that is more likely to separate
and/or develop leaks. Other potential problems include: lack of ability to
adequately secure the catheters relative to one another; and inability to
provide sufficient strain relief to the connection.” (Spec. 2 ¶ 05.)
The Claims
Claims 1-24, 27, and 28 are on appeal. Claims 1 and 10 are
representative and read as follows:
1. A catheter connection system comprising:
a connector body;
a first tube extending from the connector body,
wherein the first tube comprises a bore extending through
the first tube, and wherein the first tube defines a first tube
axis centered within and extending through the first tube;
a first catheter comprising an end portion attached to
the first tube, wherein the end portion of the first catheter
comprises a lumen that is occupied by the first tube; and
a first collar attached to the connector body, wherein
the first collar comprises a first passage, wherein the first
passage defines a first passage axis centered within and
extending through the first passage, and wherein the end
portion of the first catheter and the first tube are located
Appeal 2011-002674
Application 11/799,167

3
within the first passage, and wherein the first passage axis is
offset from the first tube axis when the first collar is attached
to the connector body;
wherein the end portion of the first catheter is
differentially compressed on opposing sides between a
portion of an outer surface of the first tube and a portion of
an inner surface of the first passage.

10. A system [according to claim 1, wherein the
connector body and the first collar comprise a retention
mechanism located between the first collar to the connector
body], wherein the retention mechanism comprises a ratchet
connection.

The issues
A. The Examiner rejected claims 1-9 and 12-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as obvious over Denoth
1
and Gohs
2
(Ans. 3-6).
B. The Examiner rejected claims 10, 23, 27, and 28 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as obvious over Denoth, Gohs, and Vasek
3
(Ans. 6-7).
C. The Examiner rejected claims 11 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Denoth, Gohs, and Feiring
4
(Ans. 7).
A. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Denoth and Gohs
The Examiner finds that Denoth teaches:
a connector body 4 and first tube 10a extending from the
interior of the connector body which comprises a bore
through the first tube and defining a first axis. Also
disclosed is a first catheter 5 comprising an end portion
capable of being attached to the first tube such that the

1
Denoth et al., US 2005/0085794 A1, published Apr. 21, 2005.
2
Gohs, H., US 3,482,857, issued Dec. 9, 1969.
3
Vasek et al., US 6,971,390 B1, issued Dec. 6, 2005.
4
Feiring, A., US 5,163,921, issued Nov. 17, 1992.
Appeal 2011-002674
Application 11/799,167

4
lumen of the catheter is occupied by the first tube. A first
collar 2 capable of being attached to the connector body is
further disclosed that defines a passage in which the end
portion of the first catheter and first tube are located.

(Ans. 3.) The Examiner finds that Denoth “does not disclose the first
catheter being differentially compressed on opposing sides between the first
tube and a portion of the first passage” (Ans. 3-4). The Examiner finds that
“Gobs [sic] discloses a conduit connector (figure 1) that uses eccentric/off-
center gripping surfaces to connect the conduits together. Figure 2 shows the
conduits inserted into the connector before sealing, then figure 3 shows the
conduits pressed off-center against connector 11 via collars 21 and 22” (id.
at 4).
The Examiner finds it obvious to “modify the connector of Denoth to
move the tubes off center in order to differentially compress opposing sides
as taught by Gohs as such is a known technique to create connections in tube
connecting devices” (id.).
The issue with respect to this rejection is: Does the evidence of record
support the Examiner’s conclusion that Denoth and Gohs render Claim 1
obvious?
Findings of Fact
1. Denoth teaches “a device for a catheter connection, in particular
to an implantable connection for connecting two catheters or catheter ends
for intravenous access” (Denoth 1 ¶ 0001).
2. Denoth teaches that “the distal catheter end 5 is placed onto the
distal joining pipe 10a whose inner diameter is about equally as large as the
inner diameter of the catheter 5” (Denoth 2 ¶ 0022).
Appeal 2011-002674
Application 11/799,167

5
3. Denoth teaches that if “the catheter 5 has been slid onto the
joining pipe 10a, then the clamping sleeve 2 can be shifted along the
catheter 5 towards the support 1 . . . whereby the clamping sleeve 2 can be
screwed onto the support 1'” (Denoth 2 ¶ 0023).

4. Figure 3 of Gohs is reproduced below:

“FIG. 3 is another longitudinal sectional view with the connector firmly
gripping and holding the electrical conduit in place” (Gohs, col. 1, ll. 60-62).
5. Gohs teaches that “FIG. 3 shows the results of turning caps 21,
22 in opposite directions. Edges 26a, b of respective caps 21, 22 are cammed
to clamp and grip conduits 28a, b, thus firmly joining same” (Gohs, col. 3,
ll. 23-26).
6. Gohs teaches that “as the caps turn a portion of each cap edge
26 is cammed to bear and clamp against the outer diameter surface of the
conduit extending therethrough to grip same” (Gohs, col. 3, ll. 12-16).
7. Gohs teaches that the “cap and bore are relatively cammed into
a clamping status to grip the outer diameter surface of conduit 28, thereby
firmly attaching same to connectors 10 or 110” (Gohs, col. 5, ll. 50-53; FF
7).
Appeal 2011-002674
Application 11/799,167

6
Principles of Law
“In proceedings before the Patent and Trademark Office, the
Examiner bears the burden of establishing a prima face case of obviousness
based upon the prior art.” In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1265 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
To establish a prima facie case of obviousness, the Examiner must
find “a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the
relevant field to combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention
does.” KSR Int’l. Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
Analysis
While we may agree with the Examiner that the offset conduits in
Gohs connector will inherently experience some amount of differential
compression when a collar is tightened for attachment around the connector
(FF 4-6), we are persuaded by Appellants’ argument that “the Examiner has
not provided any evidence or reasoning to show how or why one of ordinary
skill in the art would necessarily design a connector that provides the
differential compression” (App. Br. 17).
That is, the Examiner has not established a reason for combining the
disclosures of Denoth and Gohs to obtain the claimed invention. In
particular, Gohs teaches that the “cap and bore are relatively cammed into a
clamping status to grip the outer diameter surface of conduit 28, thereby
firmly attaching same to connectors 10 or 110” (Gohs, col. 5, ll. 50-53). So
when Gohs attaches the conduit into the connector, Gohs does not teach or
suggest compressing the tube at all. Thus, when the Examiner finds that the
reason to modify Denoth is “in order to differentially compress opposing
sides as taught by Gohs,” this finding is not supported by any evidence. The
Appeal 2011-002674
Application 11/799,167

7
Examiner does not identify, and we do not find, any reason to incorporate
the offset connection of Gohs into the connector of Denoth. (Ans. 4.)
Conclusion of Law
The evidence of record does not support the Examiner’s conclusion
that Denoth and Gohs render Claim 1 obvious.
B. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Denoth, Gohs, and Vasek
This rejection relies upon the underlying obviousness rejection over
claim 1 by Denoth and Gohs. Having reversed the rejection of claim 1 over
Denoth and Gohs, we necessarily reverse the obviousness rejection of claims
10, 23, 27, and 28 further including Vasek, since Vasek does not provide the
motivation absent from the initial rejection over Denoth and Gohs.
C. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Denoth, Gohs, and Feiring
This rejection relies upon the underlying obviousness rejection over
claim 1 by Denoth and Gohs. Having reversed the rejection of claim 1 over
Denoth and Gohs, we necessarily reverse the obviousness rejection of claims
11 and 24 further including Feiring, since Feiring does not provide the
motivation absent from the initial rejection over Denoth and Gohs.

Appeal 2011-002674
Application 11/799,167

8
SUMMARY
In summary, we reverse the rejection of claims 1-9 and 12-22 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Denoth and Gohs.
We reverse the rejection of claims 10, 23, 27, and 28 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Denoth, Gohs, and Vasek.
We reverse the rejection of claims 11 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as obvious over Denoth, Gohs, and Feiring.

REVERSED

cdc