Ex Parte Tronnes

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 31, 2013

10977500 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte CAROLE A. TRONNES
____________________

Appeal 2010-006423
Application 10/977,500
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before PHILLIP J. KAUFFMAN, PATRICK R. SCANLON, and
NEIL T. POWELL, Administrative Patent Judges.

SCANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-006423
Application 10/977,500

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Carole A. Tronnes (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134 of the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-6, 8-14, 31, 32 and 50-
54. Claims 7, 15-30 and 33-49 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
THE INVENTION
The claimed subject matter “relates to medical devices implantable in
and near a human or animal body and, more particularly, mechansims [sic]
for fixation of medical devices.” Spec., para. [0001]. Claim 1, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. An implantable medical device comprising:
a housing comprising a first end and a
second end substantially opposite the first end;
an electrode coupled to the housing;
a pulse generator coupled to the electrode;
and
a plurality of collapsible fixation structures
coupled to the housing, wherein the collapsible
fixation structures are configured to collapse in a
first direction toward the first end of the housing
and in a second direction toward the second end,
wherein the fixation structures include flanges, and
the flanges each comprise a plurality of ribs and
webbing deployed between at least two of the ribs.
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art references:
Schulman ‘367
Altman
US 5,405,367
US 5,662,698
Apr. 11, 1995
Sep. 2, 1997
Appeal 2010-006423
Application 10/977,500

3
Ollivier
Schulman ‘284
Haffner
Whitehurst
King
Heil
US 5,800,499
US 6,164,284
US 2003/0229303 A1
US 2003/0236558 A1
US 6,714,822 B2
US 2004/0230281 A1
Sep. 1, 1998
Dec. 26, 2000
Dec. 11, 2003
Dec. 25, 2003
Mar. 30, 2004
Nov. 18, 2004
THE REJECTIONS
Appellant seeks review of the following rejections:
The rejection of claims 1, 3-6, 8-12, 31, 32 and 52-54 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Schulman ‘367, Altman and Ollivier.
The rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Schulman ‘367, Altman, Ollivier and Haffner.
The rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Schulman ‘367, Altman, Ollivier and Whitehurst.
The rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Schulman ‘367, Altman, Ollivier and Schulman ‘284.
The rejection of claim 50 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Schulman ‘367, Altman, Ollivier and King.
The rejection of claim 51 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Schulman ‘367, Altman, Ollivier and Heil.
ANALYSIS
Rejection of claims 1, 3-6, 8-12, 31, 32 and 52-54
Independent claim 1 is directed to an implantable medical device that
includes a plurality of fixation structures that include a plurality of ribs with
webbing deployed between at least two of the ribs. Independent claim 31
contains a similar limitation.
Appeal 2010-006423
Application 10/977,500

4
The Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness is based in part on a
finding that Altman discloses an implantable medical device having a
plurality of fixation structures that include a plurality of ribs with webbing
deployed between at least two of the ribs. Ans. 4 (citing Figures 7-10 and
12); Ans. 10 (citing Figure 12, and col. 5, ll. 1-3). The Examiner relies upon
three embodiments in Altman (insulation 12a shown in Figure 5; insulation
12b shown in Figures 7-10, and insulators 12c-e shown in Figure 12). Ans.
4, 10; see also Altman, col. 2, ll. 50-56, 59-62.
Appellant argues that the Examiner has not articulated a sufficient
rationale for the proposed combination. App. Br. 7. Specifically, according
to Appellant, the insulation of Altman cannot reasonably be characterized as
a fixation structure. App. Br. 9. Rather, the insulation 12b of Altman is
deployed only during a defibrillation shock and is collapsed upon
completion of shock delivery, which suggests that the insulation 12b cannot
be characterized as a fixation structure. App. Br. 10 (citing Altman, col. 3,
ll. 46-63; col. 5, ll. 40-50).
None of the three embodiments relied upon by the Examiner disclose
an implantable medical device having a plurality of fixation structures that
include a plurality of ribs with webbing (insulation 12a, 12b, or 12c-e)
deployed between at least two of the ribs. First, insulation 12a is in the form
of a disk 28 and does not include ribs. Altman, col. 4, ll. 52-54; fig. 5.
Second, insulation 12b is disclosed as normally parallel to the lead body and
electrode 14 (Figure 6) and is deployed “to form a barrier to direct current
flow to the heart during the shock” (Figure 7). Altman, col. 5, ll. 36-46.
Altman makes no disclosure that insulation 12b and struts 32 perform an
anchoring function. Third, insulators 12c-e are not described or depicted as
Appeal 2010-006423
Application 10/977,500

5
including ribs. Altman, col. 6, ll. 15-27; fig. 12. Therefore, the Examiner’s
finding that Altman discloses an implantable medical device having a
plurality of fixation structures that include a plurality of ribs with webbing
(insulation 12a, 12b, or 12c-e) deployed between at least two of the ribs is
not supported by a preponderance of the evidence and does not provide a
rationale underpinning for the proposed combination.
For these reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 31
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Schulman ‘367, Altman
and Ollivier. We do not sustain the rejection of dependent claims 3-6, 8-12,
32 and 52-54, which depend respectively from claim 1 or claim 31, for the
same reasons.
Rejections of claims 2, 13, 14, 50 and 51
Each one of claims 2, 13, 14, 50 and 51, which depend directly or
indirectly from claim 1, is rejected as being obvious over the combination of
Schulman ‘367, Altman and Ollivier in further combination with one of a
plurality of additional references (i.e., Haffner, Whitehurst, Schulman ‘284,
King and Heil). The Examiner does not rely on any of these additional
references to disclose providing a plurality of collapsible fixation structures,
with each structure including a flange comprising a plurality of ribs with
webbing deployed between at least two of the ribs. As such, none of the
additional references cure the above-noted deficiencies in the combination of
Schulman ‘367, Altman and Ollivier with regard to independent claim 1.
We thus do not sustain the rejections of claims 2, 13, 14, 50 and 51 as being
obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Appeal 2010-006423
Application 10/977,500

6
DECISION
We reverse the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-6, 8-14,
31, 32 and 50-54.

REVERSED

mls