Ex Parte Bornzin et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 24, 2017

13669168 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 24, 2017)

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