LSI Solutions, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 1, 2021

2020003551 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 1, 2021)

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.
14/727,235 06/01/2015 Jude S. Sauer LSI-PAT-0065.01 US 1567
118339 7590 02/01/2021
LSI Solutions, Inc
7796 Victor-Mendon Road
Victor, NY 14564
EXAMINER
HOLWERDA, KATHLEEN SONNETT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3771
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/01/2021 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 JUDE S. SAUER
__________

Appeal 2020-003551
Application 14/727,235
Technology Center 3700
__________

Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and
ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges.

REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–6, 9, 11, 14, 15, 20, and 25. Claims
7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 16–19, and 21–24 have been canceled. Appeal Br. 26–28
(Claims App.). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as LSI
Solutions, Inc. Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”) 2, filed Apr. 29, 2019.
Appeal 2020-003551
Application 14/727,235

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter “relates to surgical suturing, and more
specifically to minimally invasive surgical suturing devices, needles, and
methods for suturing tissue and prosthetic devices such as, but not limited to,
papillary muscles, aortic roots, and annuloplasty rings.” Spec. ¶ 1. Claims 1
and 25 are independent.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter and recites:
1. A suturing device for minimally invasive surgery,
comprising:
a head defining one or more ferrule holders and a tissue
bite area;
a first needle comprising a flywheel portion and one or
more curved arms extending from the flywheel portion, each of
the one or more curved arms comprising a ferrule engaging tip,
wherein the first needle is pivotably coupled to the head;
a first actuator coupled to the first needle and configured
to rotate it from a retracted position, where the ferrule engaging
tip of each of the one or more curved arms starts away from the
one or more ferrule holders, through the tissue bite area, and to
an engaged position where the ferrule engaging tip of each of the
one or more curved arms is operationally aligned with the one or
more ferrule holders.

THE REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1–6, 9, 11, 14, 15, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Ryan (US 2006/0282088 A1, published Dec.
14, 2006).
II. Claims 1–6, 9, 11, 14, 15, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Yamamoto (US 7,144,401 B2, issued Dec. 5,
2006).
Appeal 2020-003551
Application 14/727,235

3
ANALYSIS
Rejection I – Anticipation by Ryan
The Examiner finds that Ryan discloses all the limitations of
independent claim 1. Final Act. 2.2 In particular, the Examiner finds that
Ryan discloses a suturing device comprising a head, in which the “head
defin[es] one or more ferrule holders [(noose 46a, end 46b of retention
device 46)].” Id. (citing Ryan Figs. 3A–3C). The Examiner explains that
[t]he word “head” has been given its broadest reasonable
interpretation of an upper or forward-most part of an object. The
head of the suturing device ([suturing catheter] 30; fig. 1) of
Ryan is being considered the entire distal portion of the suturing
device ([suturing catheter] 30) other than the needle, the first
actuator, and the shaft, consistent with the claims, and this distal
portion includes the ferrule holder (46a,[]b).
Ans. 3;3 see also Final Act. 6.
Appellant contends that “Ryan’s element 46a is a noose at the end of a
filament 46b. Neither of these elements are defined by any head – they are
simply elements within Ryan’s catheter 30.” Appeal Br. 12; see also Reply
Br. 2–7.4 As such, Appellant concludes that “Ryan does not teach or suggest
‘a head defining one or more ferrule holders’ as claimed by Appellant as
part of independent claim[] 1.” Id.;5 see also Reply Br. 2–7.

2 Final Office Action (“Final Act.”), dated May 29, 2018.
3 Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”), dated July 2, 2019.
4 Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”), filed Aug. 30, 2019.
5 Independent claim 1 does not positively recite a ferrule. Appeal Br. 25
(Claims App.). However, dependent claim 20 requires “one or more
ferrules” (id. at 28), and in the Final Office Action, the Examiner does not
explain what component of Ryan’s suturing device corresponds to a ferrule.
See Final Act., passim. However, in the Answer, the Examiner finds that
Ryan’s needle 60 corresponds to the required ferrule. See Ans. 6.
Appeal 2020-003551
Application 14/727,235

4
Appellant has the better position here. We begin our discussion with
a claim interpretation of the term “define.” “[C]laims in an application are
to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification and that claim language should be read in light of the
specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.”
In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
The claim limitation in dispute recites “a head defining one or more
ferrule holders” as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 25 (Claims App.)
(emphasis added). The Specification does not define the term “defining.”
Spec., passim. The Specification, however, describes that “[t]he suturing
device has a head defining one or more ferrule holders and a tissue bite
area.” Id. at ¶ 13 (emphasis added); see also id. at ¶ 14. Appellant’s Figure
6A is reproduced below.

Appellant’s Figure 6A “illustrate[s] the distal end of the surgical
suturing device of [Figure] 2 in a partially sectioned side view, loaded with a
suture.” Spec. ¶ 23. The Specification further describes that “[t]he ferrule
holders 102, 104 are either formed from or coupled to the device head 66”
(id. at ¶ 64 (emphasis added); see also id. at Figs. 5A, 5B) and that “[t]he
head 66, along with a tissue engaging surface 115 of the flywheel portion of
the needle 74, defines a tissue bite area 124” (id. at ¶ 65 (emphasis added)).
Appeal 2020-003551
Application 14/727,235

5
Merriam-Webster’s dictionary defines the term “define” as “to fix or
mark the limits of : demarcate rigidly defined property lines.”6 This
definition of the term “define” is consistent with the teachings of the
Specification. See Spec. ¶¶ 13, 14, 64, 65, Figs. 5A, 5B, 6A. For the
limitation at issue, we thus construe the term “defining” to mean “forming,
fixing, or marking the limits of.” Additionally, we construe the phrase “a
head defining one or more ferrule holders” to mean “a head forming, fixing,
or marking the limits of one or more ferrule holders.”
In this case, at best, the distal end portion of Ryan’s suturing catheter
30 accommodates or includes retention device 46 (this includes noose 46a
and end 46b), which is advanced towards the distal end portion of suturing
catheter 30. The distal end portion of Ryan’s suturing catheter 30 does not
form, fix, or mark the limits of noose 46a and end 46b of retention device
46. Consequently, Ryan does not disclose “a head defining one or more
ferrule holders” as recited in claim 1. See In re Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353,
1358 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“Although the PTO must give claims their broadest
reasonable interpretation, this interpretation must be consistent with the one
that those skilled in the art would reach.”).
Accordingly, for the above reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1–6, 9, 11, 14, 15, and 20 as anticipated by Ryan.
Rejection II – Anticipation by Yamamoto
The Examiner finds that Yamamoto discloses all the limitations of
independent claims 1 and 25. Final Act. 3–5 (citing Yamamoto Figs. 37–40,
56, 57). In particular, the Examiner finds that Yamamoto discloses a

6 https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/define (last accessed Jan. 12,
2021).
Appeal 2020-003551
Application 14/727,235

6
suturing device comprising a head defining one or more ferrule holders
(grasping means 69). Id. at 3; see also Yamamoto Fig. 2. The Examiner
explains that
[t]he word “head” has been given its broadest reasonable
interpretation of an upper or forward-most part of an object.
. . . . The [E]xaminer considers the head of the device of
Yamamoto to be the entire distal portion (e.g., fig. 2 shows a
distal portion of one embodiment of Yamamoto) of the suturing
device other than the needle, the first actuator, and the shaft,
consistent with the claims. This distal portion (the “head”)
includes the grasper (69) and the tissue bite area, and so the
grasper and the tissue bite are defined by this portion (the
“head”).
Ans. 7; see also Final Act. 8.
Appellant contends that “Yamamato’s grasper 69 is certainly not
defined by the Yamamato device head” and that Yamamato’s “grasper 69 is not
defined by tissue protective member 5 or any other object which could be
considered a device head.” Appeal Br. 18–19; see also Reply Br. 11–13. As
such, Appellant concludes that “Yamamato does not teach or suggest ‘a head
defining one or more ferrule holders’ as claimed by Appellant as part of
independent claim 1 and similarly for independent claim 25.” Id. at 19; see
also Reply Br. 11–13.
Once again, Appellant has the better position here. As discussed
above, we construe the phrase “a head defining one or more ferrule holders”
to mean “a head forming, fixing, or marking the limits of one or more ferrule
holders.” In this case, at best, Yamamoto’s entire distal portion––other than
the needle, the first actuator, and the shaft––(corresponding to the recited
“head” as found by the Examiner) accommodates or includes thread
grasping means 69 (and any grasping and withdrawing device), which is
Appeal 2020-003551
Application 14/727,235

7
advanced towards the distal end portion of Yamamoto’s device. The distal
end portion of Yamamoto’s device does not form, fix, or mark the limits of
grasping means 69. Consequently, Yamamoto does not disclose “a head
defining one or more ferrule holders” as recited in claim 1 and as similarly
recited in claim 25.
Accordingly, for the above reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1–6, 9, 11, 14, 15, and 25 as anticipated by Yamamoto.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–6, 9, 11,
14, 15, 20
102(a)(1) Ryan 1–6, 9, 11,
14, 15, 20
1–6, 9, 11,
14, 15, 25
102(a)(1) Yamamoto 1–6, 9, 11,
14, 15, 25
Overall
Outcome
1–6, 9, 11,
14, 15, 20,
25

REVERSED