Ex Parte Ryu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 13, 2016

12607817 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 13, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/607,817 10/28/2009 36802 7590 04/15/2016 PACESETTER, INC 15900 VALLEY VIEW COURT SYLMAR, CA 91392-9221 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Kyungmoo Ryu 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. A09Pl054 5258 EXAMINER MALAMUD, DEBORAH LESLIE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3766 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/15/2016 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): Patent.CRMDSylmar@sjm.com lcancino-zepeda@sjm.com epineiro@sjm.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte KYUNGMOO RYU, STUART ROSENBERG, and ALLEN KEEL Appeal2014-000697 Application 12/607,817 Technology Center 3700 Before NEALE. ABRAMS, CHARLES N. GREENHUT, and LISA M. GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judges. GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134 from a rejection of claims 1, 2, 5-16, and 18-26. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We reverse. The claims are directed to systems and methods for optimizing multi- site left ventricular pacing based on interelectrode conduction delays. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: Appeal2014-000697 Application 12/607,817 1. A method for use with an implantable cardiac stimulation device equipped for multi-site left ventricular (MSL V) pacing using a multi-pole L V lead, the method comprising: determining MSL V interelectrode conduction delays between detection of events at different L V electrodes from a plurality of LV electrodes of the multi-pole LV lead; setting MSLV interelectrode pacing delays based on the MSL V interelectrode conduction delays for use in delivering MSL V pacing along corresponding pacing vectors using the multi-pole L V lead; and controlling MSL V pacing for the corresponding pacmg vectors using the MSL V interelectrode pacing delays. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Mongeon Kramer US 2006/0155338 Al US 2008/0097536 Al REJECTIONS July 13, 2006 Apr. 24, 2008 Claims 1, 2, 5, 8-16, 1 18, 20-22, and 24--26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Mongeon. Final Act. 4. Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mongeon in view of Kramer. Final Act. 7. Claims 19 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mongeon. Final Act. 8. 1 The Examiner apparently inadvertently included claim 17 in this rejection even though both the Examiner and Appellants acknowledge claim 1 7 stands withdrawn. Final Act. 1; App. Br. 3. 2 Appeal2014-000697 Application 12/607,817 OPINION Regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner found Mongeon discloses "setting MSL V interelectrode pacing delays based on the MSL V interelectrode conduction delays." Final Act. 5, Ans. 8-9. The Examiner relies on a single recitation in Mongeon of the disclosed testing being "used to optimize CRT delivery and monitor the patients for any clinically relevant prolongation or shortening of the intra-ventricular delay" to link the resynchronization therapy with the claimed interelectrode conduction delay. Ans. 8-9, citing Mongeon, para. 65. It is unclear how the cited disclosure of a connection between pacing threshold testing and optimizing CRT delivery meets the recited limitation of "setting MSL V interelectrode pacing delays based on the MSL V interelectrode conduction delays." At most, Mongeon discloses monitoring intraventricular delays. Mongeon, para. 65. The Examiner appears to be reading too much into the cited clause, equating optimization of CRT delivery with the setting of interelectrode pacing delays based, presumably, on the monitored intraventricular delay. This is an unsubstantiated interpretation of Mongeon. As Appellants correctly argue, the CRT therapy is optimized based on determining capture thresholds. Br. 6, citing Mongeon, para. 14. Appellants also correctly point out that the capture thresholds deal with amplitude levels while the claims relate to timing intervals. Br. 8. Mongeon therefore deals with setting capture thresholds, not with setting time delays. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 is reversed. The Examiner rejected independent claims 15 and 18 concurrently with claim 1, relying on the same unsupported finding. Final Act. 4. For the 3 Appeal2014-000697 Application 12/607,817 reasons discussed in reference to claim 1, the rejection of claims 15 and 18 is also reversed. The rejections of claims 2, 5-14, 16, 19, and 20-26 are reversed due to their dependency on claims 1, 15, and 18. DECISION The Examiner's rejections are reversed. REVERSED 4