Ex Parte WahlstrandDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 12, 201814693096 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 12, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/693,096 04/22/2015 71996 7590 09/14/2018 SHUMAKER & SIEFFERT, P.A 1625 RADIO DRIVE, SUITE 100 WOODBURY, MN 55125 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Carl D. Wahlstrand 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. 1023-537US04/P022066.USC5 3844 EXAMINER MARLEN, TAMMIE K ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3762 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/14/2018 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): pairdocketing@ssiplaw.com rs.patents.five@medtronic.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte CARL D. WAHLSTRAND 1 Appeal2017-009544 Application 14/693,096 Technology Center 3700 Before DONALD E. ADAMS, JOHN G. NEW, and ELIZABETH A. LA VIER, Administrative Patent Judges. NEW, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 Appellant states that the real party-in-interest is Medtronic, Inc. App. Br. 3. Appeal2017-009544 Application 14/693,096 SUMMARY Appellant files this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § I34(a) from the Examiner's Non-Final Rejection of claims 1-12 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § I02(e) as being anticipated by Homfeldt et al. (US 2005/0228456 Al, October 13, 2005) ("Homfeldt"). Abstr. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We AFFIRM. NATURE OF THE CLAIMED INVENTION Appellant's invention is directed to an implantable electrical device. REPRESENTATIVE CLAIM Claim 1 is representative of the claims on appeal and recites: An assembly configured to at least one of deliver therapy to or monitor a patient, the assembly comprising: at least one implantable electrical lead; and an implantable medical device comprising a connection module including at least one receptacle configured to receive the at least one electrical lead, a printed wiring board including a processor, a flexible tape interconnect coupled between the at least one receptacle and the printed wiring board, and a housing to which the connection module is mounted, the housing forming a substantially sealed enclosure for the printed wiring board and the flexible tape interconnect. App. Br. 13. 2 Appeal2017-009544 Application 14/693,096 ISSUES AND ANALYSES We are persuaded by, and expressly adopt, the Examiner's findings, reasoning and conclusions establishing that Appellant's claims are prima facie anticipated by the cited prior art. We address the arguments raised by Appellant below. A. Group 1 ( Claims 1,2 and 5) Issue Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in finding that Homfeldt teaches the limitation of claiml reciting: "a housing to which the connection module is mounted, the housing forming a substantially sealed enclosure for the printed wiring board and the flexible tape interconnect." App. Br. 6. Analysis The Examiner finds, inter alia, that Homfeldt teaches a housing 7 to which the connection module is mounted, the housing forming a substantially sealed enclosure for the printed wiring board and the flexible tape interconnect. Non-Final Act. 3 (citing Homfeldt ,r 17, Fig. 1,). Appellant points to Homfeldt's disclosure that: "The modules themselves have an open interface to other modules and as a consequence the modules themselves are not hermetically sealed but hermetic sealing will be obtained when the modules are permanently attached to each other by e.g.[,] laser welding." App. Br. 6 (quoting Homfeldt ,r 12). Therefore, argues Appellant, Homfeldt discloses an open interface between modules, but does not disclose that the asserted case ( enclosure portion 7) discloses "[a] housing forming a substantially sealed enclosure for the printed wiring 3 Appeal2017-009544 Application 14/693,096 board and the flexible tape interconnect," as is recited in Appellant's claim I. Id. Appellant argues further that Homfeldt also discloses that: The connector module comprises the following parts: metallic/ceramic connector tubes la,lb, a portion 2 of the outer enclosure of the cardiac pacemaker, lead pin locking washers 3a,3b, a transparent plastic component 4, and flex circuits Sa,Sb. The metallic/ceramic connector tubes may for example be of the type disclosed in international publication WO 00/12174. The flex circuits Sa,Sb provides electrical connection between the metallic/ceramic lead connecting tubes la,lb and the electronics module 6. During manufacture the flex circuits Sa,Sb are welded to a feedthrough portion of the connector tubes la,lb. The end portions of the connecting tubes la,lb are made of metal and are adapted to be welded in both ends to the enclosure portion 2. Each of the flex circuits Sa,Sb is rolled on a connector tube and then the connector tube is inserted into the enclosure portion 2. App. Br. 6-7 (quoting Homfeldt ,r 7). Appellant argues that Homfeldt thus discloses that portion 2 is the outer enclosure of the cardiac pacemaker, and wherein "[ e Jach of the flex circuits 5a,5b is rolled on a connector tube and then the connector tube is inserted into the [outer] enclosure portion 2." Id. at 7. However, Appellant asserts, this passage of Homfeldt does not disclose: "the housing forming a substantially sealed enclosure for the printed wiring board and the flexible tape interconnect." Id. Appellant also argues that Homfeldt's disclosure that the flex circuits 5a,5b extend into the enclosure portion 2, and thus are not "enclosed" within the asserted case ( enclosure portion 7), upon which, Appellant asserts, the Examiner is relying as disclosing the case of independent claim 1. App. Br. 7. Therefore, Appellant contends, even if the enclosure portion 7 of Homfeldt could be construed as equivalent to the housing of independent 4 Appeal2017-009544 Application 14/693,096 claim 1, the disclosure of Homfeldt that the flex circuits 5a,5b and the enclosure portion 7 do not disclose the disputed limitation. We do not agree. Homfeldt is directed to: "an implantable medical device and a manufacturing method therefor wherein the implantable device is divided into modules, each of the modules forming a portion of the outer shape of the implantable medical device." Homfeldt ,r 12 (emphasis added). Homfeldt further discloses that: "Each of the modules contributes functionally as well as to the shape of the enclosure of the implantable medical device." Id. at ,r 16. Finally, Homfeldt teaches that: "the modules themselves have an open interface to other modules and as a consequence the modules themselves are not hermetically sealed but hermetic sealing will be obtained when the modules are permanently attached to each other by e.g.[,] laser welding." Id. at ,r 12. We agree with the Examiner that a person of ordinary skill in the art of implantable medical devices would have understood that Homfeldt thus discloses that the combined modules of the disclosed device, when permanently attached to each other, e.g., by laser welding, would form a "a housing to which the connection module is mounted, the housing forming a substantially sealed enclosure for the printed wiring board and the flexible tape interconnect," as recited in claim 1. We consequently affirm the Examiner's rejection of the claims. Furthermore, Appellant relies upon essentially the same arguments with respect to Group 4 (claims 6-7 and 10-12). App. Br. 10. For the reasons we have explained supra, we similarly affirm the Examiner's rejection of these claims. 5 Appeal2017-009544 Application 14/693,096 B. Group 1 (Claim 3) Issue Claim 3 depends from claim 1 and further recites: "at least one feedthrough, the at least one feedthrough providing an electrical connection between the flexible tape interconnect and the at least one receptacle." App. Br. 13. Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in finding that Homfeldt discloses this limitation. Id. at 8. Analysis Appellant asserts that the Examiner relies on paragraph [0017] of Homfeldt as disclosing the disputed limitation of claim 3, without pointing out with any degree of specificity which elements or which portions of paragraph [0017] of Homfeldt the Examiner finds discloses the elements. App. Br. 8. Appellant also argues that this same passage of Homfeldt discloses that: The flex circuits Sa,Sb provides electrical connection between the metallic/ceramic lead connecting tubes la,lb and the electronics module 6. During manufacture the flex circuits Sa,Sb are welded to a feedthrough portion of the connector tubes la, lb. The end portions of the connecting tubes la,lb are made of metal and are adapted to be welded in both ends to the enclosure portion 2. Each of the flex circuits Sa,Sb is rolled on a connector tube and then the connector tube is inserted into the enclosure portion 2. After inserting the flex circuit Sa,Sb it is rolled out and the connector tube la,lb is welded in both ends to the enclosure portion 2. Id. at 8-9 ( quoting Homfeldt ,r 18). Appellant contends that although Homfeldt thus discloses that flex circuits 5a,5b are rolled on a connector tube, it fails to disclose "at least one feedthrough, the at least one 6 Appeal2017-009544 Application 14/693,096 feedthrough providing an electrical connection between the flexible tape interconnect and the at least one receptacle," as recited in claim 3. Id. at 9. We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments. Homfeldt discloses that: "The flex circuits Sa,Sb provides electrical connection between the metallic/ceramic lead connecting tubes la,lb and the electronics module 6. During manufacture the flex circuits Sa,Sb are welded to a feedthrough portion of the connector tubes la,lb." Homfeldt ,r 17. We agree with the Examiner that Homfeldt thus expressly teaches: "at least one feedthrough, the at least one feedthrough providing an electrical connection between the flexible tape interconnect and the at least one receptacle," because the lead connecting tubes 1 a, 1 b of Homfeldt correspond to the "at least one receptacle configured to receive the at least one electrical lead," as recited in claim 1, 2 and incorporated into claim 3, and Homfeldt discloses that the flex circuits 5a,5b are welded to a feedthrough portion of the connector tubes la,lb. We consequently affirm the Examiner's rejection of claim 3. Furthermore, Appellant relies upon the same arguments with respect to Group 5 (claim 8). App. Br. 11. We reject those arguments for the reasons we have explained supra, and we similarly affirm the Examiner's rejection of claim 8. 2 See Homfeldt ,r 17 ("[T]he lead connectors are integrated into the housing without a molded plastic connector top"); see also Fig. 1. 7 Appeal2017-009544 Application 14/693,096 C. Group 3 ( Claim 4) Issue Claim 4 depends ultimately from claim 1 and recites: "electrical contacts within the at least one receptacle for electrically coupling with the electrical lead, wherein the at least one feedthrough provides the electrical connection between the flexible tape interconnect and the electrical contacts." App. Br. 13. Appellant argues that the Examiner erred because Homfeldt fails to disclose this limitation. Id. at 9. Analysis Appellant points once again to paragraph [0017] of Homfeldt, and argue that Homfeldt discloses flex circuits 5a,5b rolled on a connector tube, but fails to disclose "electrical contacts within the at least one receptacle for electrically coupling with the electrical lead, wherein the at least one feedthrough provides the electrical connection between the flexible tape interconnect and the electrical contacts," as recited in claim 4. App. Br. 10. We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument. As we have explained supra, Homfeldt expressly discloses that: "The flex circuits 5a,5b provide [ ] electrical connection between the metallic/ ceramic lead connecting tubes 1 a, 1 b and the electronics module 6. During manufacture the flex circuits 5a,5b are welded to a feedthrough portion of the connector tubes 1 a, 1 b." Homfeldt ,r 17 ( emphasis added). Thus, we agree with the Examiner that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Homfeldt discloses that the feedthrough portion of the connector tubes 1 a, 1 b that are welded to the flex circuits 5a,5b act as the: "electrical contacts within the at least one receptacle for electrically coupling with the 8 Appeal2017-009544 Application 14/693,096 electrical lead, wherein the at least one feedthrough provides the electrical connection between the flexible tape interconnect and the electrical contacts," as recited in claim 4. We consequently affirm the Examiner's rejection of claim 4. Furthermore, Appellant relies upon the same arguments with respect to Group 6 (claim 9). App. Br. 11. We reject those arguments for the reasons we have explained supra, and we similarly affirm the Examiner's rejection of claim 8. DECISION The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 9 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation