Ex Parte Peterson

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 28, 2016

12941657 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/941,657 11/08/2010 David K.L. Peterson
45458 7590 05/02/2016
SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/BSC
POBOX2938
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
6279.064US 1 1176
EXAMINER
MORALES, JON ERIC C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3766
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/02/2016 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):
uspto@slwip.com
SLW@blackhillsip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID K. L. PETERSON
Appeal2014-003973
Application 12/941,657
Technology Center 3700
Before CHii~RLES N. GREENHUT, L YJ\TJ\.JE H. BRO\\lJ'JE, and
GORDON D. KINDER, Administrative Patent Judges.
KINDER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2014-003973
Application 12/941,657
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1-
5, 10-15, and 20-25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to automatic lead identification using electric
field fingerprinting. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A method of identifying a selected one of a plurality of
different lead bodies, each of which includes a plurality of
proximal contacts and a plurality of distal electrodes respectively
electrically coupled to the proximal contacts, the selected lead
body being in contact with tissue of a patient, the method
compnsmg:
conveying electrical energy between the electrodes of the
selected lead body and the tissue;
measuring an electrical fingerprint at the proximal
contacts of the selected lead body in response to the conveyed
electrical energy; and
identifying the selected lead body based on the measured
electrical fingerprint.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Rooney
Stevenson
Libbey
US 200710150034 A 1
US 2008/0065181 A 1
US 2010/0137929 Al
2
June 28, 2007
Mar. 13, 2008
June 3, 2010
Appeal2014-003973
Application 12/941,657
REJECTIONS 1
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 10-13, 15, and 20-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Stevenson in view of Libbey
Claims 3, 14, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Stevenson in view of Libbey and further in view of
Rooney.
OPINION
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 10--13, 15, and 20--24.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 10-13, 15, and 20-24 are rejected over combination
of Stevenson and Libbey. Appellant argues that Libbey only discloses that
the lead type can be identified when the lead is inserted into the lead
connector assembly and that Libbey does not disclose how the lead
identification is performed. Further, Appellant argues that neither of the
references discloses measuring an "electrical fingerprint" in response to
electrical energy conveyed between the electrodes of the lead and tissue.
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds that Libbey discloses
measuring the electrical fingerprint at proximal contacts by measuring the
impedance of an electrical path through a single pin (99 in Fig. 2) and
comparing it to a threshold "to determine whether the impedance indicates
center pin 99 is in the electrical contact with lead 90." Libbey i-f 106.
The Specification does not provide a concise definition of "electrical
fingerprint," but it does describe how an "electrical fingerprint" is
determined and what it is used for. Specifically, using the electrical
1 The Abstract and claims 6-9 and 16-19 are objected to by the Examiner.
(Non-final Act. 2-3, 5; Ans. 2, 5) and are not before us for review.
3
Appeal2014-003973
Application 12/941,657
fingerprint, "the user may insert the lead body 42 into any port 54 of the
connector 52 of the IPG 14 [Implantable Pulse Generator] without concern
that the incorrect connector port is being used." Spec. 74.
[T]he electrical fingerprint is generated and measured by first
passing electrical current through each proximal contact 48
associated with the lead body 42 to be identified .... In
response to the passing of electrical current through each
respective proximal contact 48, the field potential is measured
in each of the other proximal contacts 48 to create field
potential profiles for each proximal contact 48 ....
. . . [F]rom this, field potential profiles for each proximal
contact 48 can be created, a composite of which can be used to
generate a fingerprint for the lead body 42 on which the
proximal contacts 48 and corresponding electrodes 26 are
carried.
The uniqueness of the electrical fingerprints is provided
by the different in-line connectivities between the proximal
contacts 48 and electrodes 26 associated with the respective
lead bodies 42. That is, for the same arrangement of proximal
contacts 48, changing the in-line connectivities will change the
distances between the electrodes 26 corresponding to the
proximal contacts 48, thereby changing the field potential
profiles for each proximal contact 48, and the resulting
electrical fingerprint for the lead body 42.
Spec. 76---78. From these paragraphs, one of ordinary skill in the art would
understand that determining the electrical fingerprint requires more than
possessing some measurable quantity such as the impedance of an electrical
path through a single electrode-tissue connection. Final Act. 4 (citing
Libbey para. 129). The "electrical fingerprint" is not "just ... a plurality of
electric field potentials," (Ans. 5. (quoting Spec. i-f 17)), but a specific set of
measurements taken, for example, as described above. The fact that Libbey
also identifies electrodes (Final Act. 4 (citing Libbey paras. 166-168) does
4
Appeal2014-003973
Application 12/941,657
not mean that Libbey necessarily does so by using a technique that can
reasonably be considered to involve "electrical fingerprint[s]." Producing
the same or similar results is not necessarily the product of employing the
same method steps or structures. Moreover, we note that Libbey does not
meet even the description quoted by the Examiner, since Libbey discloses
only testing the impedance of a single electrode, not a plurality. The claim at
issue requires "conveying electrical energy between the electrodes [plural]
of the selected lead body and the tissue." (Emphasis added.) Libbey makes
no suggestion of how the impedance might be measured and makes no
suggestion that the process should involve conveying electricity from more
than one electrode to tissue. Stevenson was not cited for teaching an
electrical fingerprint and does nothing to cure the deficiencies of Libbey.
In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection
of claim 1 and claims 2, 5, 4, 10, and 11, which depend therefrom. Claim 12
requires "input circuitry configured for receiving an electrical fingerprint"
and "a processor configured for automatically identifying ... based on the
measured electrical fingerprint. Appeal Br. 8. Thus, for the same reasons,
we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 12, and claims 13 and
20, which depend therefrom.
Claims 21-24.
Claim 21 is an independent claim, and it includes the limitation "a
plurality of elongated lead bodies each having a plurality of proximal
contacts and a plurality of distal electrodes ... , wherein an in-line
5
Appeal2014-003973
Application 12/941,657
connectivity between the electrodes and proximal contacts carried by the
different lead bodies differs from each other."
Appellant has provided no specific, concise definition of "in-line
connectivity," but the Specification evinces what this phrase means. See
Spec. i-f 78. Each conductor includes a contact at its proximal end and an
electrode at its distal end. The conductors are grouped into lead bodies, and
the contacts and electrodes are arranged in a fixed order or arrangement.
The order in which the contacts at the proximal end are connected to the
electrodes at its distal end varies from one lead body to the next. "That is,
for the same arrangement of proximal contacts 48, changing the in-line
connectivities will change the distances between the electrodes 26
corresponding to the proximal contacts 48." Id.
The rejection of claims 21-24 relies on the two leads 110 and 112 of
Stevenson which can have different kinds of tip electrodes. However, as is
clear from Stevenson paragraphs 111 and 112, each of the leads 110 and 112
constitutes a single conductor. Specifically, in paragraph 111 Stevenson
describes a lead wire 110, and in paragraph 112 the similar system is used
except that a ring electrode 134 is attached to lead wire 112. These two
paragraphs make clear that the lead wires 110 and 112 are individual
conductors, not each a bundle of conductors in a single lead body. There is
no indication that the conductors 110 and 112 are connected to each other at
all, much less in an order that varies. Moreover, it is not seen how a single
conductor could vary the order in which it is connected to a contact. We
agree with Appellant that although the Examiner may have demonstrated
that a lead with a tip electrode and a lead with the ring electrode constitute
two different leads, they do not constitute two leads having different in-line
6
Appeal2014-003973
Application 12/941,657
connectivity between the electrodes and the proximal contacts. For this
reason we reverse the rejection of claim 21.
Claims 22-24 depend from claim 21, and we do not sustain the
rejection of those claims for the same reasons.
Claims 3, 14, and 25.
Claims 3, 14, and 25 are dependent claims which add limitations of
specific kinds of electrodes to the claims from which they depend. Because
the rejections of the independent claims are not sustained, and the reference
added to make the rejection of these claims does not address the deficiency
of the rejections of the independent claims, we do not sustain the rejection of
claims 3, 14, and 25.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-5, 10-15,
and 20-25 is reversed.
REVERSED
7