Medtronic, Inc.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 6, 20212020004912 (P.T.A.B. May. 6, 2021) Copy Citation 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. 14/607,866 01/28/2015 Steven M. Goetz 1123-132US01/ C00006107.US 6553 71996 7590 05/06/2021 SHUMAKER & SIEFFERT , P.A 1625 RADIO DRIVE , SUITE 100 WOODBURY, MN 55125 EXAMINER NEWTON, CHAD A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3686 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/06/2021 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 STEVEN M. GOETZ and PEDRAM AFSHAR Appeal 2020-004912 Application 14/607,866 Technology Center 3600 Before ERIC S. FRAHM, BETH Z. SHAW and, JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject (i) claims 1–5, 7, 8, 12–19, 21, 22, 25–27, 31, 32, 34, 35; and (ii) claims 6 and 20. See Final Act. 3, 132. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 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 Medtronic, Inc. Appeal Br. 3. 2 The Examiner objected to Claims 28–30 and 33 as depending from a rejected base claim, but indicated that these claims include subject matter that would be allowable if rewritten in independent form. See Appeal Br. 8; Final Act. 14; Ans. 3. Appeal 2020-004912 Application 14/607,866 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to systems and techniques for mitigating error from gesture input in a medical system. Claims 1 and 6, reproduced below, are illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method comprising: receiving, by a processor, an indication of a first gesture input; determining, by the processor, that the first gesture input is an indicator gesture input; responsive to the determination that the first gesture input is the indicator gesture input, entering, by the processor, a gesture control mode during which the processor is configured to control one or more actions related to a medical procedure; receiving, by the processor and during the gesture control mode, an indication of a second gesture input associated with the medical procedure, the second gesture input requesting an adjustment to one or more therapy parameters; responsive to receiving the indication of the second gesture input, adjusting, by the processor and based on the indication of the second gesture input, the one or more therapy parameters that at least partially define delivery of a therapy to a patient from an implantable medical device, wherein a magnitude of the adjustment to the one or more therapy parameters is limited for the second gesture input received during the gesture control mode; and controlling delivery of the therapy to the patient according to the adjusted one or more therapy parameters. 6. The method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving field input data during the gesture control mode; detecting, from the field input data, an unexpected object in an envelope within which the second gesture input was sensed; and responsive to detecting the unexpected object, exiting the gesture control mode to prevent detection of erroneous gesture input due to the unexpected object. Appeal 2020-004912 Application 14/607,866 3 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Tremaine US 2014/0049465 A1 Feb. 20, 2014 MacDougall US 2013/0271397 A1 Oct. 17, 2013 Heruth US 2010/0174155 A1 July 8, 2010 Goetz US 2011/0307032 A1 Dec. 15, 2011 Challinor US 2011/0185309 A1 July 28, 2011 REJECTIONS (1) Claims 1–5, 7, 8, 12–19, 21, 22, 25–27, 31, 32, 34, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Tremaine, MacDougall, Heruth, and Goetz. Final Act. 3. (2) Claims 6 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Tremaine, MacDougall, Heruth, Goetz, and Challinor. Final Act. 13. OPINION Claim 1 On this record, Appellant has not shown any reversible error in the Examiner’s conclusion that claim 1 is obvious over the combination of Tremaine, MacDougall, Heruth, and Goetz. We refer to, rely on, and adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions set forth in the Final Rejection and Answer. Claim 1 recites, in part, “receiving, by the processor and during the gesture control mode, an indication of a second gesture input associated with the medical procedure, the second gesture input requesting an adjustment to Appeal 2020-004912 Application 14/607,866 4 one or more therapy parameters;” and “responsive to receiving the indication of the second gesture input, adjusting, by the processor and based on the indication of the second gesture input, the one or more therapy parameters that at least partially define delivery of a therapy to a patient from an implantable medical device, wherein a magnitude of the adjustment to the one or more therapy parameters is limited for the second gesture input received during the gesture control mode.” Claims App’x. Appellant argues that “the Examiner has failed to explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would have interpreted the claimed magnitude of the adjustment requested by the user to be the same as the ‘rate of change of stimulation’ described by Goetz.” Id. at 13. Further, Appellant argues that “limiting the rate of change between a first stimulation zone and a user- specified target stimulation zone does not disclose limiting the magnitude of the user-specified stimulation zone to a stimulation zone different than the user-specified stimulation zone. The rate of change may be considered a parameter different from the magnitude parameter.” Id. at 10–11. We agree with the Examiner that Goetz teaches that a rate of change of stimulation is limited and this rate of change is understood as being a magnitude of adjustment of therapy. See Ans. 4. We agree with the Examiner that: Goetz teaches that therapy needs to get from an initial zone to a target zone and the user wants this to be done, for example, at 10 units per second. However the system would have been limited to 7 units per second thereby limiting the magnitude of the rate of change of stimulation. As such, by limiting the magnitude of the rate of change, this limits the magnitude of adjustment of one or more therapy parameters. There is no indication in the claim as to what the magnitude of change must or must not entail other that it is in reference to a therapy Appeal 2020-004912 Application 14/607,866 5 parameter. Given the broadest reasonable interpretation, Goetz teaches the argued feature. Id. We also agree with the Examiner that “the Appellant is arguing for features that are not claimed” when the Appellant argues that “the Examiner has failed to show that Goetz describes limiting a magnitude of a parameter adjustment requested by the user.” Ans. 5. Rather, the disputed claim element recites, “wherein a magnitude of the adjustment to the one or more therapy parameters is limited for the second gesture input received during the gesture control mode.” Appeal Br. 4, 10, Claims App’x. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1. We also sustain the rejection of dependent claims 2–5, 7, 8, 12–14, and 34, for which Appellant presents no additional arguments. We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 15–19, 21, 22, 25, 31, 32, and 35; claim 26; claim 27; and claim 33. Despite nominally arguing these claims separately, Appellant reiterates similar arguments made in connection with claim 1, and alleges that the additional cited prior art fails to cure those purported deficiencies. Appeal Br. 13–16. We are not persuaded by these arguments for the reasons previously discussed. Dependent Claim 6 Claim 6 depends from claim 1 and recites, in part, “detecting, from the field input data, an unexpected object in an envelope within which the second gesture input was sensed; and responsive to detecting the unexpected object, exiting the gesture control mode to prevent detection of erroneous gesture input due to the unexpected object.” Appeal Br. 17–18, Claims App’x. Appeal 2020-004912 Application 14/607,866 6 Appellant argues that Challinor fails to teach detecting an unexpected object. Appeal Br. 18. In particular, Appellant argues that Challinor “describes when to skip frames due to possible error, and the Examiner has failed to explain how this passage describes detecting an unexpected object in an envelope.” Id. Moreover, Appellant argues that “skipping information that may just be noise is expressly not detecting any object because the inter- frame vector below the noise threshold is discarded before any object detection can be performed.” Id.; see also Reply Br. 8. We are not persuaded by these arguments because as the Examiner finds, and we agree, Challinor discloses that [o]bject detection has to be done in all frames regardless if they are skipped or not because there would not be any basis to determine which frames contain erroneous gestures/objects. Because the objects in these skipped frames are not what the system expects to use for its measurements, it is considered as an unexpected object and causes the system to exit gesture control mode. Ans. 7. Therefore, for these reasons, and for the reasons explained above and in the Final Rejection and Answer, we are unpersuaded one skilled in the art would not have recognized the combination of Tremaine, MacDougall, Heruth, Goetz, and Challinor teaches or suggests the disputed limitations of claim 6. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Tremaine, MacDougall, Heruth, Goetz, and Challinor. We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 20. Despite nominally arguing claim 20 separately, Appellant reiterates similar arguments made in connection with claim 6, and alleges that the additional cited prior art fails to cure those purported Appeal 2020-004912 Application 14/607,866 7 deficiencies. Appeal Br. 17–19. We are not persuaded by these arguments for the reasons previously discussed. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections are affirmed. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–5, 7, 8, 12–19, 21, 22, 25–27, 31, 32, 34, 35 103 Tremaine, MacDougall, Heruth, and Goetz 1–5, 7, 8, 12–19, 21, 22, 25–27, 31, 32, 34, 35 6, 20 103 Tremaine, MacDougall, Heruth, Goetz, Challinor 6, 20 Overall Outcome: 1–8, 12–22, 25–27, 31, 32, 34, 35 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation