Ex Parte Mazanec

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 18, 2017

12544367 (P.T.A.B. May. 18, 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.
12/544,367 08/20/2009 Paul Richard Mazanec 1352.1105101 9235
28075 7590 05/22/2017
SEAGER, TUFTE & WICKHEM, LLP
100 SOUTH 5TH STREET
SUITE 600
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
EXAMINER
FLORY, CHRISTOPHER A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3762
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/22/2017 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):
GEN .USPTO@stwiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PAUL RICHARD MAZANEC
Appeal 2016-000032
Application 12/544,3 671
Technology Center 3700
Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, LEE L. STEPINA, and
ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Paul Richard Mazanec (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a)
from the Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 21—23, 25, 26, 28, 29,
36, and 372 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Wang et al. (US
5,702,431, iss. Dec. 30, 1997) (“Wang”) and Hassler, Jr. et al. (US
2005/0288739 Al, pub. Dec. 29, 2005) (“Hassler”). We have jurisdiction
over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
1 According to Appellant, Gat Funding, LLC is the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 3 (filed Mar. 30, 2015).
2 Claims 1—20, 24, and 27 are canceled. Appeal Br. 15—16. Claims 30—
35 are withdrawn from consideration. Final Act. 1 (mailed Mar. 28, 2014).
Appeal 2016-000032
Application 12/544,367
SUMMARY OF DECISION
We REVERSE.
INVENTION
Appellant’s invention relates “to recharging of batteries in implantable
medical devices.” Spec., para. 4.
Claims 21 and 36 are independent. Claim 21 is illustrative of the
claimed invention and reads as follows:
21. An implantable device for receiving electrical power
from an external charger unit, the external charger unit
producing an oscillating current in a primary coil at a driving
frequency, the oscillating current producing an oscillating
magnetic field proximate the external charger unit, the
implantable device comprising:
a secondary coil for receiving the oscillating magnetic
field and producing an alternating current at the driving
frequency, the amplitude of the alternating current depending in
part on the driving frequency, on an amplitude of the oscillating
current in the primary coil, and on the relative orientations of
the primary and secondary coils;
a rectifier for receiving the alternating current from the
secondary coil and producing a single-sided current;
a regulator for receiving the single-sided current from the
rectifier and producing an essentially direct current at a
regulated voltage;
a rechargeable battery charged by the essentially direct
current; and
a control loop for temporarily short-circuiting both ends
of the secondary coil to ground.
2
Appeal 2016-000032
Application 12/544,367
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that Wang discloses most of the limitations of
claim 21 including, inter alia, “a control loop which is capable of
temporarily short circuiting both ends of the secondary coil.” Final Act. 3
(citing Wang, col. 9,1. 52—col. 10,1. 24, col. 14 1. 65—col. 15,1. 12, Fig. 14).
The Examiner relies on Hassler as teaching that it is known and beneficial to
selectively short out the secondary coil. Id. (citing Hassler, col. 9,11. 52—
67). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to modify
the method of Wang to short circuit the secondary coil as taught by Hassler
to “provide the predictable results of preventing overcharging or damage to
the rechargeable battery 13,” as desired by Wang. Id. at 4.
Appellant contends that the damage to the battery of Wang is caused
by overheating, not overcharging. Appeal Br. 12 (citing Hassler, para. 12
discussing Wang). Appellant asserts that Wang already “provides a fully
functional apparatus which is said to avoid peak temperature rises in an
implanted medical device during charging of the included battery,” and that
“[t]he Examiner has not identified a disclosed deficiency of Wang which
would be addressed by the proposed modification in view of Hassler.” Id.
Appellant argues that because both references independently accomplish
similar functions, a person having ordinary skill in the art “‘would have no
reason to combine the features of both devices into a single device.’” Id.
(citing, Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 688 F.3d 1342 (Fed.
Cir. 2012)).
The Examiner responds that Hassler does not directly teach shorting
of each end of the secondary coil to ground. Ans. 3. Rather, the Examiner
3
Appeal 2016-000032
Application 12/544,367
notes the reason for combining Hassler with Wang is “for the purpose of
preventing excessive energy transfer to the load (battery) as it approaches a
maximum in order to provide the benefits of avoiding overcharging and
damaging of the load connected to the secondary coil.” Id. at. 3-4 (citing
Hassler, paras. 40 and 47).
Appellant replies that secondary coil 10 in Figure 14 of Wang is
incapable of short circuiting, and that any modification to provide this
functionality “would add additional complexity and expense” to the Wang
device without improving its intended purpose of avoiding overheating of
the device. Reply Br. 3.
Wang’s system “produces charging current at either a high or low
level to provide efficient charging without an excessive temperature rise in
the implanted device.” Wang, col. 4,11. 49—53. Hassler avoids the problem
of overheating by preventing energy or power transfer to load 50 by short-
circuiting capacitor 40 or secondary coil 34. Hassler, para. 40. As such,
although we appreciate that the power interruption in Hassler prevents
overheating, nonetheless, the reasoning provided by the Examiner,
namely,“‘[to] provide the predictable results of preventing overcharging or
damage to the rechargeable battery 13,’” does not support the conclusion of
obviousness because Wang’s system already prevents damage to the battery
by preventing overheating. We agree with Appellant that “[t]he Examiner
has not identified a disclosed deficiency of Wang which would be addressed
by the proposed modification in view of Hassler.” Appeal Br. 12.
Moreover, we note that Hassler discusses Wang in the Background of the
Invention stating that the approach in Wang is applicable for the power
4
Appeal 2016-000032
Application 12/544,367
transfer of Wang, but that Wang’s approach does not address the power
requirements of a bi-directional infuser, as required by Hassler. Hassler,
para. 12. As Wang does not power a bi-directional infuser, the Examiner’s
reasoning to modify Wang’s system to short circuit the secondary coil, as
taught by Hassler, lacks rational underpinnings and appears to be the result
of hindsight analysis. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 21—23, 25, 26, 28, 29, 36, and 37 as
unpatentable over Wang and Hassler.
SUMMARY
The Examiner’s decision to reject under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) claims
21—23, 25, 26, 28, 29, 36, and 37 is reversed.
REVERSED
5