Ex Parte Bornzin et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 24, 201713669168 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 24, 2017) 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. 13/669,168 11/05/2012 Gene A. Bornzin A12P1007 9524 36802 7590 01/26/2017 PACESETTER, INC. 15900 VALLEY VIEW COURT SYLMAR, CA 91392-9221 EXAMINER PLATES KI, ERIN M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3766 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/26/2017 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): Patent.CRMDSylmar@sjm.com lcancino-zepeda@sjm.com epineiro @ sj m. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte GENE A. BORNZIN and JOHN W. POORE Appeal 2015-001963 Application 13/669,168 Technology Center 3700 Before: CHARLES N. GREENHUT, BRETT C. MARTIN, and BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges. GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1— 10. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appeal 2015-001963 Application 13/669,168 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a leadless implantable medical device with dual chamber sensing functionality. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A leadless implantable medical device (LIMD), comprising: a housing configured to be implanted entirely within a single local chamber of the heart, the local chamber having local wall tissue that constitutes part of a conduction network of the local chamber; a controller within the housing to cause stimulus pulses to be delivered; a sensing circuit to perform sensing; an active fixation member coupled to the housing, the active fixation member configured to be secured to a septum that separates the local chamber from an adjacent chamber, the adjacent chamber having distal wall tissue, with respect to the local chamber, that constitutes part of a conduction network of the adjacent chamber; and an electrode pair having first and second active electrode areas coupled to the sensing circuit, the first and second electrode areas positioned such that, when the LIMD is implanted, the electrode pair penetrates the septum so that the electrode pair is electrically coupled to the conduction network of the adjacent chamber in the distal wall tissue, the sensing circuit detecting, as near field signals, voltages originating within the conduction network of the adjacent chamber and sensed by the first and second active electrode areas, the sensing circuit rejecting, as far field signals, voltages originating within the conduction network of the local chamber and sensed by the first and second active electrode areas. REJECTIONS Claims 1, 2, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cowan (US Patent Application Publication 2006/0136004 Al, published Jun. 22, 2006) Peacock (US Patent Application Publication 2 Appeal 2015-001963 Application 13/669,168 2010/0069983 Al, published Mar. 18, 2010), and Levine (US Patent No. 7, 184,834 Bl, issued Feb. 27, 2007). Claims 3—9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cowan, Peacock, Levine, and Friedman (WO 2011/028949 Al, published Mar. 10, 2011). Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cowan, Peacock, Levine, Friedman and Weyant (US Patent No. 4,513,752, issued Apr. 30, 1985). OPINION All claims are either grouped with, or argued based on dependency from, claim 1. Regarding claim 1, the Examiner relies on Cowan for, among other things, demonstrating that multisite sensing and/or pacing was known to be desirable in certain conditions, albeit sometimes difficult to implement, and suggesting that more than one site, not necessarily in the same chamber, can be communicated with by penetrating the septum. Final Act. 3^4 (citing Cowan paras. 10, 24, 90; fig. 9b); Ans. 16—17 (citing Cowan paras. 24—26). Appellants argue: the Examiner points to various sections of the background of Cowan et al. (paragraph [0024]) to allege that Cowan et al. teach a leadless device implanted in a local chamber with electrodes coupled to the conduction network of an adjacent chamber. However, Cowan et al. itself makes no such disclosure... Br. 9. However, Appellants statement mischaracterizes the Examiner’s rejection. The Examiner expressly acknowledges: Cowan does not specifically teach that the pair of electrodes penetrates the septum (the figure shows only one electrode visibly penetrating the septum) so that the electrode pair is 3 Appeal 2015-001963 Application 13/669,168 electrically coupled to the conduction network of the adjacent chamber in the distal wall tissue. Final Act. 4. Regarding electrical coupling to the conduction network of an adjacent chamber the Examiner relies on Peacock. Ans. 4—5. Appellants do not address the Examiner’s findings regarding Peacock at all. Appellants turn to Levine and argue Levine “does not in any way disclose or suggest that near field signals should be detected from the conduction network of an adjacent chamber as alleged by the Examiner.” This statement may be correct but fails to account for the combined teachings of Levine and Peacock. In Figure 3 of Peacock a first electrode 40 is shown in the right ventricle 4, a “local chamber,” and a second electrode 70 is placed in the septal wall 8 for communication with the left ventricle 6, and “adjacent chamber.” Levine teaches that signals from chambers opposite those with which communication is intended should be treated as “far-field” signals. Final Act. 6 (citing Levine col. 2,11. 7—41). When Levine’s teaching in this regard is applied to Peacock’s electrode arrangement, the result is that for the electrode 70 (comprised of array 72, 74, 76), i.e., the electrode “electrically coupled to the conduction network of the adjacent chamber,” voltages originating from chamber 6, the “adjacent chamber” would be detected as near field signals and voltages originating from the opposite, or “the local” chamber 4, are rejected as far field signals. See Ans. 17—18. As Appellants have not addressed the Examiner’s well-reasoned position in this regard, which is based on the combined teachings of the references, the Examiner’s position stands essentially uncontroverted. 4 Appeal 2015-001963 Application 13/669,168 DECISION The Examiner’s rejections are 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation