KCI Licensing, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 20, 2020

2020001831 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 20, 2020)

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.
14/150,216 01/08/2014 Timothy Mark Robinson VAC.1118US 6701
60402 7590 11/20/2020
KINETIC CONCEPTS, INC.
c/o Harness Dickey & Pierce
5445 Corporate Drive
Suite 200
Troy, MI 48098
EXAMINER
SASS, SARA A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3786
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/20/2020 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):
dgodzisz@hdp.com
troymailroom@hdp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TIMOTHY MARK ROBINSON and
CHRISTOPHER BRIAN LOCKE
Appeal 2020-001831
Application 14/150,216
Technology Center 3700
Before WILLIAM A. CAPP, JEREMY M. PLENZLER, and
LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–14. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies KCI Licensing, Inc. as the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-001831
Application 14/150,216

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to absorbent medical dressings having ion
exchange media disposed therein. Spec. 2.
Claim 1, reproduced below with emphasis added, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter.
1. A system for treating a tissue site with reduced pressure,
the system comprising:
a manifold adapted to be positioned adjacent the tissue
site;
an ion exchange member adapted to be fluidly coupled to
the manifold and adapted to reduce an ionic concentration of
fluid from the tissue site;
an absorbent adapted to be fluidly coupled to the manifold
and the ion exchange member and adapted to stabilize the fluid
from the tissue site;
a sealing member adapted to cover the tissue site to form
a sealed space having the manifold disposed therein; and
a reduced-pressure source adapted to be fluidly coupled to
the manifold, the ion exchange member, and the absorbent,
wherein the reduced-pressure source is adapted to draw the fluid
from the tissue site, through the ion exchange member, and into
the absorbent.
Appeal Br. 18 (Claims App.).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Smith US 2006/0107642 Al May 25, 2006
Blott US 2007 /0129707 Al June 7, 2007
Davis US 2007/0148117 Al June 28, 2007
Watt US 2007/0225663 Al Sept. 27, 2007
Childs US 2008/0017578 Al Jan. 24, 2008
Cassin US 2013/0315650 Al Nov. 28, 2013

Appeal 2020-001831
Application 14/150,216

3
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1–3, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Watt and Davis.
II. Claims 4–9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Watt, Davis, and Blott.2
III. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Watt, Davis, and Cassin.
IV. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Watt, Davis, Cassin, and Childs.
V. Claim 14 is are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Watt, Davis, and Smith.
OPINION
Rejection I (Watt and Davis)
Claim 1
The Examiner finds that Watt discloses many of the elements recited
in claim 1, including a member adapted to be fluidly coupled to the manifold
(layer 15), but does not disclose that layer 15 is an ion exchange member.
Final Act. 2 (citing Watt ¶¶ 8, 80, Fig. 3). The Examiner finds Davis
remedies this deficiency by disclosing “a Poly AMPS hydrated hydrogel . . .
layer in a skin dressing . . . where the Poly AMPS layer exchanges lactate
ions . . . to support angiogenesis.” Id. (citing Watt ¶¶ 24, 27, 35–37).
Appellant argues the Examiner’s finding that Davis discloses an ion
exchange layer relies on an unreasonably broad interpretation of the term
“ion exchange . . . adapted to reduce an ionic concentration” in claim 1. See

2 The body of this rejection addresses claim 6, although the heading of this
rejection omits claim 6. Final Act. 3–4.
Appeal 2020-001831
Application 14/150,216

4
Appeal Br. 3–7. Specifically, Appellant asserts “‘an ion exchange member
adapted to be fluidly coupled to the manifold and adapted to reduce an ionic
concentration of fluid from the tissue site’ involves the reciprocal transfer of
ions between the ion exchange member and the fluid from the tissue site that
brings down the ionic concentration of the fluid from the tissue site.” Id.
at 4. According to Appellant, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of
claim 1, Davis fails to disclose an ion exchange member because it merely
teaches a “one-way release” of ions, not a “two-way reciprocal exchange” of
ions. Id. at 7.
Appellant also asserts that, regardless of whether the disclosure of a
source of lactate ions in Davis amounts to a disclosure of an ion exchange
member, Davis describes only a one-way release of ions, and, this release is
into fluid in a patient’s wound. Therefore, according to Appellant, Davis
fails to teach a member adapted to reduce an ionic concentration of fluid
from the tissue site. Id. at 6–7. In this regard, Appellant contends Davis
teaches increasing the ion concentration in the fluid in a wound in order to
provide specific benefits, namely, the stimulation of angiogenesis and
optimization of a redox environment for cellular interaction. Id. at 7.
In response, the Examiner states,
Davis teaches the PolyAMPS hydrated hydrogel acts to absorb
water and other materials exuded from a wound site (0026) while
releasing lactate ions to act as an antioxidant in the wound
environment (0037) and the lactate ions stimulate angiogenesis
(0037). In so doing, Davis’ PolyAMPS layer conducts an
exchange of ions.
Ans. 8 (emphasis added).
Addressing Appellant’s second argument, the Examiner states, “Davis
also teaches removing water, which has anions and cations, from the wound
Appeal 2020-001831
Application 14/150,216

5
site (0026). In the removal of water from the wound site, Davis’ dressing
reduces ionic concentration at the wound site.” Id. at 10. The Examiner also
takes the position that “[t]he claim limitation of reducing ionic concentration
of fluid from the tissue site is first addressed by Watt, who teaches
member 15 adapted to be fluidly coupled to the manifold 14 and adapted to
reduce a concentration of fluid/bacterial toxins from exudate from the tissue
site (0080, Figure 3).” Id. at 9.
In reply, Appellant disputes the Examiner’s finding that the absorption
of water and other materials constitutes the absorption of ions in the sense an
ion exchange member absorbs ions. Reply Br. 2–3. Instead, Appellant
argues, Davis discloses absorbing water while contributing ions to the fluid
remaining in the wound. Id. at 4. Appellant reiterates that the process
disclosed by Davis increases the concentration of ions in the wound fluid,
contrary to the requirements of claim 1. Id.
We are persuaded by Appellant’s argument that Davis fails to disclose
an ion exchange member adapted to reduce an ionic concentration of fluid
from a tissue site. As argued by Appellant, Davis discloses that its dressing
acts as a source of ions, and the presence of ions has beneficial effects on
wound healing. See, e.g., Davis ¶ 47. Thus, Davis intends to provide ions to
the patient’s wound. Even assuming for the purpose of argument that the
Davis provision of ions combined with its removal of water equates to “ion
exchange,” the Examiner does not identify support for a finding that the
result of such an exchange would reduce an ionic concentration of fluid from
the tissue site as required by claim 1. Rather, this process would appear to
increase ion concentration.
Appeal 2020-001831
Application 14/150,216

6
As for the Examiner’s statement in the Answer that “reducing ionic
concentration of fluid from the tissue site is first addressed by Watt,”
(Ans. 9), the Examiner does not provide adequate explanation as to how
Watt’s disclosure of removing bacterial toxins via silver-impregnated
charcoal cloth (see Watt ¶ 80), combined with Davis’ teachings that the
presence of ions is helpful to the wound healing process (see Davis ¶ 80),
would have rendered obvious an ion exchange member adapted to reduce an
ionic concentration of fluid from the tissue site as recited in claim 1.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 and claims 2, 3, 12,
and 13 depending therefrom as unpatentable over Watt and Davis.
Rejections II–V
(Watt, Davis in combination with any of Blott, Cassin, Childs, and Smith)
The Examiner does not apply the teachings of Blott, Cassin, Childs,
and Smith in any manner that would remedy the deficiencies discussed
above regarding Rejection I. See Final Act. 3–5. Accordingly, we do not
sustain Rejections II–V.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are reversed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis  Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 12, 13 103(a) Watt, Davis   1–3, 12, 13
4–9 103(a) Watt, Davis, Blott  4–9
10 103(a) Watt, Davis, Cassin 10
11 103(a) Watt, Davis, Cassin,
Childs
11
14 103(a) Watt, Davis, Smith 14
Appeal 2020-001831
Application 14/150,216

7
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis  Affirmed Reversed
Overall
Outcome
1–14

REVERSED