Ex Parte Schulman

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 20, 2012

11173863 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 20, 2012)

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.
11/173,863 07/01/2005 Joseph H. Schulman A383-USA 8476
24677 7590 09/20/2012
ALFRED E. MANN FOUNDATION FOR
SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH
PO BOX 905
SANTA CLARITA, CA 91380
EXAMINER
EVANISKO, GEORGE ROBERT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3762
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/20/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE PATENT AND TRIAL APPEAL BOARD
__________

Ex parte JOSEPH H. SCHULMAN
__________

Appeal 2011-009420
Application 11/173,863
Technology Center 3700
__________

Before ERIC GRIMES, MELANIE L. McCOLLUM, and JACQUELINE
WRIGHT BONILLA, Administrative Patent Judges.

McCOLLUM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims to a
biocompatible medical apparatus. The Examiner has rejected the claims as
anticipated or obvious. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We
affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims 1, 3-6, and 13-17 are pending and on appeal (App. Br. 2).
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, and 13 are representative and read as follows:
Appeal 2011-009420
Application 11/173,863

2
1. A hermetic implantable, biocompatible medical apparatus,
comprising a plurality of processing electronics, configured to sense tissue
signals, said apparatus comprising:
a ceramic case having a wall with an outer surface that encloses said
processing electronics;
a plurality of electrodes in communication with said processing
electronics;
a plurality of feedthroughs in said ceramic case, each feedthrough
adapted to receive a respective electrode; and
an antenna comprised of silver, said antenna the product of thermal
processing of silver paste, bonded to the outer surface of the wall of said
ceramic case, said antenna in electrical communication with said processing
electronics.
3. The apparatus according to claim 1 further comprising a metal
interface ring and a braze ring, wherein said metal interface ring is bonded to
said ceramic case by said braze ring.
4. The apparatus according to claim 3 further comprising a diaphragm
and a weldment, wherein said diaphragm is bonded to said metal interface
ring by said weldment.
6. The apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising:
a flex connector containing a plurality of electrical conductors,
wherein said electrical conductors are each attached to one of said
electrodes; and
an array of neuro-needles each attached to one of said plurality of
electrical conductors.
13. A biocompatible motor cortex stimulator or sensor comprising:
processing electronics;
a ceramic case having a wall with an outside surface that encloses said
processing electronics;
at least one electrode in electrical communication with said processing
electronics;
at least one feedthrough located in the wall of said ceramic case;
said electrically conductive feedthrough containing said electrode; and
the stimulator or sensor further comprising an antenna, the product of
thermal processing of silver paste, said antenna bonded to the outside
Appeal 2011-009420
Application 11/173,863

3
surface of the wall of said ceramic case, the antenna in electrical
communication with said processing electronics.
Claims 1 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by or under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Sun
1
(Ans. 4).
Claims 1, 3, 4, and 13-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Fischer
2
in view of Sun (Ans. 7).
Claims 5, 6, 16, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Fischer in view of Sun and Burgert
3
(Ans. 17).
Claims 1, 3-6 and 13-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Burgert in view of Fischer and Sun (Ans. 11).
I
The Examiner finds that “Sun provides an implantable stimulator . . .
having an antenna on the exterior of the housing . . . , where the housing is
ceramic . . . , a feedthrough, 50, with electrode/conductor/pin, 52, [and] the
broadly claimed „components‟” (Ans. 4). The Examiner also finds that Sun
“states that the antenna is a noble metal, which silver is a noble metal, and
provides an example of using a noble metal, such as silver” (id.). The
Examiner notes that “the claim contains a product by process limitation, „the
product of thermal processing of silver paste,‟” but notes that the
“patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production”
(id.).

1
Sun et al., US 5,861,019, Jan. 19, 1999.
2
Fischer, US 4,785,827, Nov. 22, 1988.
3
Johann Burgert et al., Embedded electronics for a 64-channel wireless
brain implant, in Microrobotics and Microassembly III (Proceedings of
SPIE) 4568: 124-134 (2001).
Appeal 2011-009420
Application 11/173,863

4
Alternatively, the Examiner finds that “Sun discloses the claimed
invention except for the antenna being a silver antenna” (id.). The Examiner
relies on Campbell,
4
Tai,
5
or Schwartz
6
as providing evidence that it was
known in the art to use “a silver antenna external to the implantable
housing” (id. at 7). The Examiner concludes:
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the
art at the time the invention was made to include in the noble
antenna of Sun, the use of a silver antenna as taught by
Campbell, Tai, or Schwartz, since it was well known in the art
that implantable devices use silver antennas to provide the
predictable results of a noble metal, such as silver, that is
biocompatible and easily manufactured and a relatively
inexpensive noble metal.
(Id.)
Findings of Fact
1. Sun is directed to a “telemetry antenna for an implantable
medical device” (Sun, col. 1, ll. 25-27).
2. Sun discloses an “implantable medical device microstrip patch
antenna [that] advantageously extends over the available surface area of [a]
hermetically sealed enclosure housing” (id. at col. 5, ll. 44-46).
3. Sun states:
At present, a wide variety of implanted medical devices are
commercially released or proposed for clinical implantation.
Such medical devices include implantable cardiac pacemakers
as well as implantable cardioverter-defibrillators, pacemaker-
cardioverter-defibrillators, drug delivery pumps, cardiomyo-

4
Campbell et al., US 7,289,853 B1, Oct. 30, 2007.
5
Tai et al., US 2006/0271129 A1, Nov. 30, 2006.
6
Schwartz, US 6,746,404 B2, Jun. 8, 2004.
Appeal 2011-009420
Application 11/173,863

5
stimulators, cardiac and other physiologic monitors, nerve and
muscle stimulators, deep brain stimulators, cochlear implants,
artificial hearts, etc.
(Id. at col. 4, l. 64, to col. 5, l. 4.)
4. Sun also states that the “following description is directed to
various preferred embodiments of the invention implemented in the housing
of a cardiac pacemaker or pacemaker-cardioverter-defibrillator IPG”
(implantable pulse generator), but that “those of skill in the art will be
readily able to adapt the teachings found herein to the other implantable
medical devices listed above and others to be devised” (id. at col. 8, ll. 5-12,
& col. 2, ll. 7-8).
5. In particular, Sun discloses:
IPG 12 is electrically coupled to the heart 18 of the patient 10
through pace/sense electrodes and lead conductor(s) of at least
one cardiac pacing lead 14 in a manner known in the art. The
IPG 12 contains an operating system that may employ a
microcomputer or a digital state machine for timing sensing and
pacing functions in accordance with a programmed operating
mode. The IPG 12 also contains sense amplifiers for detecting
cardiac signals, patient activity sensors or other physiologic
sensors for sensing the need for cardiac output, and pulse
generating output circuits for delivering pacing pulses to at least
one heart chamber of the heart 18 under control of the operating
system in a manner well known in the prior art.
(Id. at col. 8, ll. 27-39.)
6. Sun also discloses:
FIGS. 9 and 10 depict top and side views . . . of a breadboard
microstrip RF telemetry antenna 128 that is tested in the test
setup of FIG. 11. In this breadboard, a circular, flat radiator
patch layer 130 is formed of approximately 0.001 inch thick
Appeal 2011-009420
Application 11/173,863

6
sheet of silver having a diameter of 1.5 inches that is fired upon
the upper surface of a flat dielectric substrate layer 136.
(Id. at col. 12, l. 63, to col. 13, l. 2.)
7. In addition, Sun discloses:
FIGS. 16 and 17 depict a third embodiment of an RF telemetry
antenna 28 with the radiator patch layer 30, 30' formed on the
exterior surface of a dielectric, ceramic, housing 13' of an
IPG 12 and having a ground plane layer 48' formed as a
conductive layer on the interior surface of the IPG housing 13'.
. . . It will be understood that the ground plane layer 48' is
insulated electrically from interior circuit components within
the IPG housing. This embodiment also illustrates an
alternative form of the feedthrough pin 52 which fills the
dielectric layer hole 38 and is abutted against the interior
surface of the radiator patch layer 30, 30'.
(Id. at col. 15, ll. 46-61.)
8. Sun also discloses:
In each of the preferred embodiments, the radiator patch layer is
preferably formed of a stable, bio-compatible, conductive layer
that is applied as a thin plate or thin film deposition over the
exterior surface of the dielectric layer. The radiator patch layer
may be formed of a noble metal, e.g. gold, platinum, niobium,
or an alloy thereof.
(Id. at col. 16, ll. 36-41.)
9. Campbell discloses “creat[ing] an antenna by selectively plating
highly conductive metals (such as silver or gold) onto the outside surface of
the Wireless Pacemaker Housing 128” (Campbell, col. 12, ll. 58-61).
10. In particular, Campbell discloses that “a highly conductive
metal, such as gold, can be bonded to the surface of the Wireless Pacemaker
Housing 128 to form a modified loop antenna” (id. at col. 12, l. 67, to
col. 13, l. 2).
Appeal 2011-009420
Application 11/173,863

7
11. Campbell also discloses that this “method is also effective if
Selective Double Plating 182 is used, wherein a very high conductivity
metal is selectively plated onto the Wireless Pacemaker Housing 128, such
as silver, and a protective metal is plated over it which is compatible with
implantation, such as gold” (id. at col. 13, ll. 45-49).
12. Schwartz discloses “a telemetric medical system comprising a
telemetric medical sensor for implantation in a patient‟s body for measuring
a parameter therein” (Schwartz, col. 2, ll. 36-38).
13. In particular, Schwartz discloses: “The sensor 50 . . . includes
an antenna coil 68 which is operatively connected to the internal components
of the sensor 50 by an antenna lead 70. . . . The material used for the antenna
wire is approximately 90% silver content with a cladding of platinum
iridium of approximately 10% content.” (Id. at col. 8, ll. 55-61.)
Analysis
Appellant argues that “Sun teaches an antenna and not a hermetic
enclosure” (App. Br. 4). In addition, Appellant argues that Sun does not
teach “a ceramic case that encloses electronic components” (id.). We are not
persuaded.
Sun is directed to an antenna (Finding of Fact (FF) 1). However, Sun
clearly discloses extending the antenna over a hermetically sealed enclosure
housing (FF 2). In particular, Sun discloses “an RF telemetry antenna 28
with the radiator patch layer 30, 30' formed on the exterior surface of a
dielectric, ceramic, housing 13' of an IPG 12,” and “interior circuit
components within the IPG housing” (FF 7; see also FF 5). Sun may not
specifically recite the electronic components recited in paragraph 17 of the
Appeal 2011-009420
Application 11/173,863

8
Specification. However, claims 1 and 13 merely recite “processing
electronics.” We do not interpret this language to require the particular
electronic components recited in paragraph 17 of the Specification.
Appellant also argues that “Sun does not teach a stimulator” (App.
Br. 4). We are not persuaded.
We note initially that claim 1 does not recite a stimulator. In addition,
we note Appellant‟s admission that pacemaker-cardioverter-defibrillators,
which are disclosed in Sun (FF 4), “do provide stimulation/sensing” (Reply
Br. 4). Furthermore, Sun discloses that “those of skill in the art will be
readily able to adapt [its] teachings . . . to . . . other implantable medical
devices,” such as nerve stimulators and deep brain stimulators (FF 3-4).
In addition, Appellant argues that “Sun does not teach a silver
antenna” and, in fact, teaches away from implanting a silver antenna (App.
Br. 4 & 9). We are not persuaded.
Sun discloses: “[T]he radiator patch layer is preferably formed of a
stable, bio-compatible, conductive layer. . . . The radiator patch layer may be
formed of a noble metal, e.g. gold, platinum, niobium, or an alloy thereof.”
(FF 8.) As noted by Appellant (App. Br. 5), Sun does not specifically list
silver, except in the context of a breadboard (FF 6). In addition, Appellant
provides a Declaration
7
stating: “[T]he term „noble metal‟ means a non-
reactive metal in a specific environment. . . . Silver . . . reacts when
implanted. . . . Silver is not considered noble by Sun. . . .” (Dec. 1 ¶ 4.)

7
Declaration Under 37 CFR 1.132 of Dr. Guangqiang Jiang dated April 7,
2010.
Appeal 2011-009420
Application 11/173,863

9
However, the Examiner provides evidence to support his finding that
“the use of a silver antenna external to the implantable housing” was known
in the art (Ans. 7). We conclude that at least Campbell
8
and Schwartz
support this finding (FF 9-13). As noted by Appellant (Reply Br. 5-6), both
Campbell and Schwartz teach silver covered by another metal (FF 11 & 13).
However, we do not interpret claims 1 and 13 to exclude silver coated with
another metal. Therefore, we conclude that the preponderance of the
evidence of record supports the Examiner‟s conclusion that Sun, as
evidenced by Campbell and Schwartz, teaches or suggests an antenna
comprised of silver.
Conclusion
The evidence supports the Examiner‟s conclusion that Sun teaches or
suggests claims 1 and 13. We therefore affirm the rejection of claims 1 and
13 over Sun.
II
The Examiner relies on Fischer for disclosing “a ceramic outer surface
. . . , with brazed weld ring (e.g. 20), metal interface ring (e.g. 36/38) and
diaphragm (e.g. . . . 32) with electronic circuitry inside the housing (e.g. 11a
. . . ), with feedthrough and lead/electrode/conductor (e.g. . . . 25)” (Ans. 7).
The Examiner finds that “Fischer does not disclose the antenna on the

8
Appellant argues that “Campbell is unavailable as prior art having been
filed on 8/30/04, while Appellant filed 7/1/05 with a priority claim to a
provisional filing on 7/7/04” (Reply Br. 5). However, the Examiner notes
that Campbell “claims priority back to provisional applications” (May 24,
2011, Patent Office comm.), which were filed on March 23, 2004, and
August 28, 2003. Thus, we conclude that Appellant has not established that
Campbell is unavailable as prior art.
Appeal 2011-009420
Application 11/173,863

10
outside of the ceramic housing . . . and diaphragm welded to the metal
interface ring” (id. at 7-8).
The Examiner relies on Sun for teaching “that it is known to use a
noble metal antenna, such as silver, on the exterior of the ceramic case” (id.
at 8). The Examiner concludes:
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the
art at the time the invention was made to modify the IMD as
taught by Fischer, with the exterior silver antenna as taught by
Sun, since such a modification would provide an IMD with a
noble metal antenna, such as silver, on the exterior of the
ceramic case in order to provide the predictable results of
allowing the system to operate with enhanced data bit rates and
low error rates over a long distance and to minimize power
consumption.
(Id.) Alternatively, the Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious
“to include in the noble antenna of Fischer in view of Sun, the use of a silver
antenna, since it was well known in the art . . . that implantable devices use
silver antennas,” as evidenced by Campbell, Tai, and Schwartz (id. at 8 &
11).
In addition, the Examiner concludes:
[I]t would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the
art at the time the invention was made to modify the medical
device as taught by . . . Fischer and Sun with welding the
interface ring to the diaphragm (a weldment) since it was
known in the art that hermetic implantable devices use welding
to weld metal rings to a diaphragm/lid of the housing to provide
the predictable results of a secure connection that is easily
manufactured and provides a hermetic seal.
(Id. at 8.)
Appeal 2011-009420
Application 11/173,863

11
Additional Findings of Fact
14. Fischer “relates to housings for electronic circuitry adapted to
be used subcutaneously” (Fischer, col. 1, ll. 5-7).
15. Fischer discloses:
The housing assembly 10 comprises a container sub-
assembly 14 comprising (1) a dish-like ceramic portion 15 . . .
and (2) a continuous metal sealing flange 20. The metal sealing
flange 20 includes first and second portions 21 and 22 disposed
at about a right angle to each other. The first portion 21 of the
sealing flange 20 . . . is brazed along its entire length to a lip 23
around the periphery of the ceramic portion 15.
(Id. at col. 2, l. 62, to col. 3, l. 5.)
16. Fischer also discloses:
The housing assembly 10 also comprises a base subassembly 30
comprising (1) a plate-like ceramic portion 32 . . . and (2) a
continuous metal sealing flange 36. The metal sealing
flange 36 includes first and second portions 37 and 38 disposed
at about a right angle to each other. The first portion 37 . . . is
brazed to the ceramic portion 32.
(Id. at col. 3, ll. 13-22.)
17. In addition, Fischer discloses:
[T]he first and second portions 37 and 38 of the sealing
flange 36 on the base subassembly 30 are adapted to nest with
the first and second portions 21 and 22 of the sealing flange 20
on the container subassembly 14 with the inner surfaces of the
ceramic portions 15 and 32 adjacent, and the second portions 22
and 38 of the nested sealing flanges 36 and 20 positioned
closely adjacent and projecting along the periphery of the
ceramic portion 32 of the base subassembly 30 to a position
with their distal edges generally aligned and spaced from the
ceramic portion 32 where they can be laser or electron beam
welded together entirely around the sealing flanges 20 and 36 to
form a weld bead 42.
Appeal 2011-009420
Application 11/173,863

12
(Id. at col. 3, ll. 31-44.)
Analysis
Appellant traverses the rejection of claims 1 and 13 based on the
alleged failure to teach or suggest silver (App. Br. 10). We are unpersuaded
by this argument for the reasons discussed above.
With regard to claims 3 and 4, inter alia, Appellant also argues:
Neither Fisher nor Sun nor their combination teach a metal
interface ring and a braze ring, wherein the metal interface ring
is bonded to the ceramic case. Also, Fisher and Sun in
combination do not teach a diaphragm and a weldment, where
the diaphragm is bonded to the metal interface ring by the
weldment.
(App. Br. 10.) We are not persuaded.
The Examiner considers metal sealing flange 36 to be the metal
interface ring and metal sealing flange 20 to be the braze ring (Ans. 7).
Fischer discloses that sealing flange 20, which is brazed to a dish-like
ceramic portion 15 (FF 15), is welded to sealing flange 36 (FF 17). Thus,
Fischer‟s sealing flange 36 is bonded to ceramic portion 15 through sealing
flange 20.
The Examiner considers ceramic portion 32 to be the diaphragm
(Ans. 7). Fischer discloses that metal interface ring 36 “is brazed to the
ceramic portion 32” (FF 16). The Examiner finds that Fischer does not
disclose the claimed weldment, but concludes that welding would have been
obvious (Ans. 7-8). Appellant has not adequately explained why this
conclusion is in error.
Appeal 2011-009420
Application 11/173,863

13
Conclusion
The evidence supports the Examiner‟s conclusion that Fischer and
Sun suggest claims 1 and 13. We therefore affirm the obviousness rejection
of claims 1 and 13 over Fischer and Sun.
The evidence also supports the Examiner‟s conclusion that Fischer
and Sun suggest claims 3 and 4. We therefore affirm the obviousness
rejection of claims 3 and 4 over Fischer and Sun. Claims 14 and 15 are
argued with and therefore fall with claims 3 and 4. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
III
In rejecting claims 5, 6, 16, and 17, the Examiner additionally relies
on Burgert for teaching “that it is known to provide from the implant 64
connections/feedthroughs for connection to 64 amplifiers and hence 64
conductors/electrodes . . . , with a flex connector . . . containing electrical
conductors . . . for connection to an array of neuro-needles” (Ans. 17). The
Examiner concludes:
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the
art at the time the invention was made to modify the IMD as
taught by the modified Fischer, with the 64 feedthroughs with
an array of neuro-needles attached to an electrical conductor
and a flex connector containing the electrical conductor for
connection to the feedthrough conductor/electrode as taught by
Burgert, . . . to provide the predictable results of a sensor array
that reduces the occurrence of infection and tissue damage at
the site of measurement and facilitates the surgical implantation
of the array.
(Id. at 17-18.)
Appeal 2011-009420
Application 11/173,863

14
Additional Findings of Fact
18. Burgert discloses “a surgically implantable device for the study
of neural activity in the brain” (Burgert 124: Abstract).
19. In particular, Burgert discloses that an “8x8 array of electrodes
collects intra-cortical neural signals and connects them to an analog front
end,” which amplifies and digitizes the signals (id.).
20. Burgert also discloses that a “flex circuit connector provides
mechanical isolation between the brain and the electronics” (id.).
21. In addition, Burgert discloses: “This array, coupled with a
flexible connector we have designed, should also reduce the occurrence of
infection and tissue damage at the site of the measurement. This new
connector system should also facilitate the surgical implantation of the array,
a task that is quite difficult with current systems.” (Id. at 125.)
22. Burgert also discloses: “The 8 by 8 stainless-steel, electrode
array serves as the sensor for the system; each electrode is electrically-
insulated except at its tip, which is platinum coated (Fig. 1). Each electrode
is then connected to a separate analog channel by a trace on the flexible
connector.” (Id.)
23. In addition, Burgert discloses:
The 8x8 electrode array was manufactured out of a piece of
4140 stainless steel using wire EDM (electron discharge
machining). . . . The array was then electroplated with platinum
for conductivity. A square piece of Kapton polyimide with
64 holes drilled in it was dropped over the array and secured to
each electrode with epoxy, then the base of the array was cut
off using EDM to electrically isolate the electrodes, leaving
short stubs protruding from the back of the polyimide square.
. . . The end of the flexible connector was then aligned with the
Appeal 2011-009420
Application 11/173,863

15
stubs of the isolated electrodes, via 64 drilled holes, and hand-
soldered in place.
(Id. at 127.)
24. Burgert also discloses:
The connector between the array and the electronics is a flex
circuit board: 64 traces that connect the solder pads at the array
end to the electronics are etched on a sheet of Kapton. The
traces are connected to the electronics by a fine-pitch surface-
mount connector. The flex circuit board provides fairly good
flexibility in one plane since it will bend up and down easily.
(Id. at 128.)
Analysis
Appellant argues that, “as Dr. Jiang points out in his Declaration of
April 7, 2010, Burgert casually mentions a flex connector and offers no
teaching or enablement or figures to clarify what the phrase „flex circuit
connector‟ means” (App. Br. 13). We are not persuaded.
First, we do not agree that Burgert merely casually mentions the flex
circuit connector (see FF 20-24). In particular, Burgert states that its
connector “is a flex circuit board,” which “provides fairly good flexibility in
one plane since it will bend up and down easily” (FF 24).
Although Burgert may not disclose a flex connector as depicted in
Appellant‟s Figure 3, representative claim 6 generally recites a flex
connector. In addition, even if Burgert does not specifically teach how to
choose the materials of construction and incorporate a conductor (Dec. 2),
Appellant‟s argument does not persuade us that it would not have been
within the ordinary level of skill in the art to practice Burgert‟s invention.
Appeal 2011-009420
Application 11/173,863

16
Appellant also argues: “No teaching, suggestion or reason to combine
is offered by the references being cited. Further, there is nothing to indicate
that anyone, not relying on hindsight, would, from the three references cited,
arrive at the invention set forth in appellant‟s claims 6 and 17.” (App.
Br. 13.) We are not persuaded.
Burgert discloses: “This array, coupled with a flexible connector we
have designed, should also reduce the occurrence of infection and tissue
damage at the site of the measurement. This new connector system should
also facilitate the surgical implantation of the array.” (FF 21.) In view of
this teaching, the Examiner concludes:
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the
art at the time the invention was made to modify the IMD as
taught by the modified Fischer, . . . with an array of neuro-
needles attached to an electrical conductor and a flex connector
containing the electrical conductor . . . as taught by Burgert, . . .
to provide . . . a sensor array that reduces the occurrence of
infection and tissue damage at the site of measurement and
facilitates the surgical implantation of the array.
(Ans. 17-18.) Appellant has not adequately explained why this conclusion is
in error.
Conclusion
The evidence supports the Examiner‟s conclusion that Fischer, Sun,
and Burgert suggest claim 6. We therefore affirm the obviousness rejection
of claim 6 over Fischer in view of Sun and Burgert. Claims 5, 16, and 17
are not separately argued and therefore fall with claim 6. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appeal 2011-009420
Application 11/173,863

17
IV
With regard to the obviousness rejection of claims 1, 3-6, and 13-17
over Burgert in view of Fischer and Sun, the Examiner concludes:
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the
art at the time the invention was made to modify the IMD as
taught by Burgert, with . . . how the implant is constructed, such
as being ceramic, with brazed and metal interface rings, . . . to
provide the predictable results of a secure, hermetically sealed
housing allowing for sensing/stimulating of the body and to
provide a noble metal antenna, such as silver, on the exterior of
the ceramic case to provide the predictable results of allowing
the system to operate with enhanced data bit rates and low error
rates over a long distance and to minimize power consumption.
(Ans. 12.)
Appellant argues that the “reshuffling of the same three references
does not rise to a specific rejection of the cited claims absent a discussion of
the elements” (App. Br. 14). However, having detected no error in this
combination of references, we affirm the obviousness rejection of claims 1
and 13 over Burgert in view of Fischer and Sun. Claims 3-6 and 14-17 are
not separately argued and therefore fall with claims 1 and 13. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED

alw