Ex Parte Weekamp et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 25, 2017

13388998 (P.T.A.B. May. 25, 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. 13/388,998 02/06/2012 Johannes Wilhelmus Weekamp 2009P01173WOUS 2591 24737 7590 05/30/2017 PTTTT TPS TNTFT T FfTTTAT PROPFRTY fr STANDARDS EXAMINER 465 Columbus Avenue EDWARDS, PHILIP CHARLES Suite 340 Valhalla, NY 10595 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3762 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/30/2017 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): marianne. fox @ philips, com debbie.henn @philips .com patti. demichele @ Philips, com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JOHANNES WILHELMUS WEEKAMP, JAN FREDERIK SUIJVER, WALTHERUS CORNELIS JOZEF BIERHOFF, SZABOLCS DELADI, and GODEFRIDUS ANTONIUS HARKS Appeal 2016-000222 Application 13/388,998 Technology Center 3700 Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Johannes Wilhelmus Weekamp et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. Appeal 2016-000222 Application 13/388,998 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a catheter for open-loop irrigated ablation of tissue, the catheter having an imaging system. Claims 1,14, and 15 are independent. Claim 1 requires the catheter’s distal tip to include an ultrasound transducer “disposed behind or in the irrigation hole of the catheter, so as to allow an irrigation fluid to flow out of the irrigation hole, and so as to allow transmitting and/or receiving the ultrasonic waves through the irrigation hole.” App. Br. 23, Claims App. Claims 14 and 15 are similar. Id. at 25—26. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A catheter adapted for open-loop irrigated ablation of a tissue, said catheter comprising a distal tip, wherein the distal tip includes: an ablation entity for performing ablation of the tissue; an irrigation hole; and an ultrasound transducer adapted for transmitting and/or receiving ultrasonic waves; wherein the ultrasound transducer is disposed behind or in the irrigation hole of the catheter, so as to allow an irrigation fluid to flow out of the irrigation hole, and so as to allow transmitting and/or receiving the ultrasonic waves through the irrigation hole. REFERENCES Willis US 6,216,027 B1 Apr. 10, 2001 Sliwa US 2010/0168570 A1 July 1,2010 REJECTIONS Claims 1, 2, 6, 9, 11—15, and 17—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Sliwa. Final Act. 3. 2 Appeal 2016-000222 Application 13/388,998 Claims 3—5, 7, 8, 10, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sliwa and Willis. Id. at 5. ANALYSIS Anticipation by Sliwa Claims 1, 2, 6, 9, 11—15, and 17—20 The Examiner finds, inter alia, that Sliwa’s liquid outlets 38 correspond to the claimed irrigation holes, and Sliwa’s transducer 24 corresponds to the claimed ultrasound transducer “disposed behind or in the irrigation hole of the catheter.” Final Act. 4 (citing Sliwa 149); see Sliwa Fig. 2. In so finding, the Examiner explains that “[t]he claims do not specify what constitutes ‘behind or in’ in relation to the catheter body.” Id. at 2. According to the Examiner, “[wjithout any context, the ‘behind’ may constitute a distal or proximal interpretation,” and “transducer 24 is inside the catheter body near the liquid outlets 38, which constitutes ‘in.’” Id. at 2— 3. Appellants dispute that Sliwa teaches this limitation referencing “page 3, lines 27—33 of the present patent application” as support. App. Br. 10. “In examining a patent claim, the PTO must apply the broadest reasonable meaning to the claim language, taking into account any definitions presented in the specification.” In re Bass, 314 F.3d 575, 577 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (internal citation omitted). Where an explicit definition is provided by the applicant for a term, the definition will control interpretation of the term as it is used in the claim. Toro Co. v. White Consol. Indus. Inc., 199 F.3d 1295, 1301 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The Specification provides an express definition for “in” or “behind” the irrigation hole, as follows: 3 Appeal 2016-000222 Application 13/388,998 In the context of the present application, the term “in” refers to the displacement of the ultrasound transducer within the irrigation hole itself, whereas the term “behind” refers to any position inside the distal tip which is not within the irrigation hole and which permits to [sic] the ultrasonic waves generated from the ultrasound transducer to flow through the irrigation hole undisturbed or with minimal interference from the distal tip. In particular, this may also imply that the ultrasound transducer may be able to direct its ultrasonic waves towards the irrigation hole from any displacement. Spec. 3:27-33. Thus, the Specification makes clear that “disposed ... in the irrigation hole” (emphasis added) requires the transducer to be “within the irrigation hole itself,” which is narrower than simply “near” the irrigation hole. Applying this definition, Sliwa’s transducer 24 is not “in” any of liquid outlets 38. Sliwa, Fig. 2. The Specification also makes clear that “disposed behind... the irrigation hole” (emphasis added) requires the ultrasound transducer to be positioned such that “ultrasonic waves generated from the ultrasound transducer . . .flow through the irrigation hole undisturbed or with minimal interference from the distal tip.” Spec. 3:30—31 (emphasis added). The Examiner does not explain how ultrasonic waves generated by Sliwa’s transducer 24 flow through any of liquid outlets 38 “undisturbed or with minimal interference from” tip 14 as claimed. Although the Examiner is correct that Sliwa teaches that liquid acoustically couples ultrasound assembly 22 to adjacent tissue, this teaching does not address whether ultrasonic waves flow through liquid outlets 38, as the claims require. Because we are not persuaded that Sliwa’s catheter satisfies this limitation, we do not sustain this rejection. 4 Appeal 2016-000222 Application 13/388,998 Obviousness over Sliwa and Willis Claims 3—5, 7, 8, 10, and 16 This rejection relies on the Examiner’s finding that Sliwa discloses a catheter having an ultrasound transducer “disposed behind or in the irrigation hole.” Because we are not persuaded that Sliwa teaches this limitation, this rejection is not sustained. DECISION For the above reasons, we REVERSE the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—20. REVERSED 5