Medtronic, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 6, 2021

2020004912 (P.T.A.B. May. 6, 2021)

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.
14/607,866 01/28/2015 Steven M. Goetz 1123-132US01/
C00006107.US
6553
71996 7590 05/06/2021
SHUMAKER & SIEFFERT , P.A
1625 RADIO DRIVE , SUITE 100
WOODBURY, MN 55125
EXAMINER
NEWTON, CHAD A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3686
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/06/2021 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):
pairdocketing@ssiplaw.com
rs.patents.five@medtronic.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STEVEN M. GOETZ and PEDRAM AFSHAR
Appeal 2020-004912
Application 14/607,866
Technology Center 3600
Before ERIC S. FRAHM, BETH Z. SHAW and, JOYCE CRAIG,
Administrative Patent Judges.
SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject (i) claims 1–5, 7, 8, 12–19, 21, 22, 25–27, 31,
32, 34, 35; and (ii) claims 6 and 20. See Final Act. 3, 132. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Medtronic, Inc.
Appeal Br. 3.
2 The Examiner objected to Claims 28–30 and 33 as depending from a
rejected base claim, but indicated that these claims include subject matter
that would be allowable if rewritten in independent form. See Appeal Br. 8;
Final Act. 14; Ans. 3.
Appeal 2020-004912
Application 14/607,866
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to systems and techniques for mitigating error
from gesture input in a medical system. Claims 1 and 6, reproduced below,
are illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method comprising:
receiving, by a processor, an indication of a first gesture input;
determining, by the processor, that the first gesture input is an
indicator gesture input;
responsive to the determination that the first gesture input is the
indicator gesture input, entering, by the processor, a gesture control
mode during which the processor is configured to control one or more
actions related to a medical procedure;
receiving, by the processor and during the gesture control
mode, an indication of a second gesture input associated with the
medical procedure, the second gesture input requesting an adjustment
to one or more therapy parameters;
responsive to receiving the indication of the second gesture
input, adjusting, by the processor and based on the indication of the
second gesture input, the one or more therapy parameters that at least
partially define delivery of a therapy to a patient from an implantable
medical device, wherein a magnitude of the adjustment to the one or
more therapy parameters is limited for the second gesture input
received during the gesture control mode; and
controlling delivery of the therapy to the patient according to the
adjusted one or more therapy parameters.

6. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving field input data during the gesture control mode;
detecting, from the field input data, an unexpected object in an
envelope within which the second gesture input was sensed; and
responsive to detecting the unexpected object, exiting the gesture
control mode to prevent detection of erroneous gesture input due to the
unexpected object.

Appeal 2020-004912
Application 14/607,866
3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Tremaine US 2014/0049465 A1 Feb. 20, 2014
MacDougall US 2013/0271397 A1 Oct. 17, 2013
Heruth US 2010/0174155 A1 July 8, 2010
Goetz US 2011/0307032 A1 Dec. 15, 2011
Challinor US 2011/0185309 A1 July 28, 2011

REJECTIONS
(1) Claims 1–5, 7, 8, 12–19, 21, 22, 25–27, 31, 32, 34, and 35 are
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Tremaine,
MacDougall, Heruth, and Goetz. Final Act. 3.
(2) Claims 6 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Tremaine, MacDougall, Heruth, Goetz, and Challinor.
Final Act. 13.

OPINION
Claim 1
On this record, Appellant has not shown any reversible error in the
Examiner’s conclusion that claim 1 is obvious over the combination of
Tremaine, MacDougall, Heruth, and Goetz. We refer to, rely on, and adopt
the Examiner’s findings and conclusions set forth in the Final Rejection and
Answer.
Claim 1 recites, in part, “receiving, by the processor and during the
gesture control mode, an indication of a second gesture input associated with
the medical procedure, the second gesture input requesting an adjustment to
Appeal 2020-004912
Application 14/607,866
4
one or more therapy parameters;” and “responsive to receiving the
indication of the second gesture input, adjusting, by the processor and based
on the indication of the second gesture input, the one or more therapy
parameters that at least partially define delivery of a therapy to a patient
from an implantable medical device, wherein a magnitude of the adjustment
to the one or more therapy parameters is limited for the second gesture input
received during the gesture control mode.” Claims App’x.
Appellant argues that “the Examiner has failed to explain why one of
ordinary skill in the art would have interpreted the claimed magnitude of the
adjustment requested by the user to be the same as the ‘rate of change of
stimulation’ described by Goetz.” Id. at 13. Further, Appellant argues that
“limiting the rate of change between a first stimulation zone and a user-
specified target stimulation zone does not disclose limiting the magnitude of
the user-specified stimulation zone to a stimulation zone different than the
user-specified stimulation zone. The rate of change may be considered a
parameter different from the magnitude parameter.” Id. at 10–11.
We agree with the Examiner that Goetz teaches that a rate of change
of stimulation is limited and this rate of change is understood as being a
magnitude of adjustment of therapy. See Ans. 4. We agree with the
Examiner that:
Goetz teaches that therapy needs to get from an initial zone to a
target zone and the user wants this to be done, for example, at
10 units per second. However the system would have been
limited to 7 units per second thereby limiting the magnitude of
the rate of change of stimulation. As such, by limiting the
magnitude of the rate of change, this limits the magnitude of
adjustment of one or more therapy parameters. There is no
indication in the claim as to what the magnitude of change must
or must not entail other that it is in reference to a therapy
Appeal 2020-004912
Application 14/607,866
5
parameter. Given the broadest reasonable interpretation, Goetz
teaches the argued feature.

Id. We also agree with the Examiner that “the Appellant is arguing for
features that are not claimed” when the Appellant argues that “the Examiner
has failed to show that Goetz describes limiting a magnitude of a parameter
adjustment requested by the user.” Ans. 5. Rather, the disputed claim
element recites, “wherein a magnitude of the adjustment to the one or more
therapy parameters is limited for the second gesture input received during
the gesture control mode.” Appeal Br. 4, 10, Claims App’x.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1. We also
sustain the rejection of dependent claims 2–5, 7, 8, 12–14, and 34, for which
Appellant presents no additional arguments. We also sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness rejections of claims 15–19, 21, 22, 25, 31, 32, and 35; claim 26;
claim 27; and claim 33. Despite nominally arguing these claims separately,
Appellant reiterates similar arguments made in connection with claim 1, and
alleges that the additional cited prior art fails to cure those purported
deficiencies. Appeal Br. 13–16. We are not persuaded by these arguments
for the reasons previously discussed.

Dependent Claim 6
Claim 6 depends from claim 1 and recites, in part, “detecting, from
the field input data, an unexpected object in an envelope within which the
second gesture input was sensed; and responsive to detecting the unexpected
object, exiting the gesture control mode to prevent detection of erroneous
gesture input due to the unexpected object.” Appeal Br. 17–18, Claims
App’x.
Appeal 2020-004912
Application 14/607,866
6
Appellant argues that Challinor fails to teach detecting an unexpected
object. Appeal Br. 18. In particular, Appellant argues that Challinor
“describes when to skip frames due to possible error, and the Examiner has
failed to explain how this passage describes detecting an unexpected object
in an envelope.” Id. Moreover, Appellant argues that “skipping information
that may just be noise is expressly not detecting any object because the inter-
frame vector below the noise threshold is discarded before any object
detection can be performed.” Id.; see also Reply Br. 8.
We are not persuaded by these arguments because as the Examiner
finds, and we agree, Challinor discloses that
[o]bject detection has to be done in all frames regardless if they
are skipped or not because there would not be any basis to
determine which frames contain erroneous gestures/objects.
Because the objects in these skipped frames are not what the
system expects to use for its measurements, it is considered as
an unexpected object and causes the system to exit gesture
control mode.

Ans. 7.
Therefore, for these reasons, and for the reasons explained above and
in the Final Rejection and Answer, we are unpersuaded one skilled in the art
would not have recognized the combination of Tremaine, MacDougall,
Heruth, Goetz, and Challinor teaches or suggests the disputed limitations of
claim 6. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 6 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Tremaine, MacDougall, Heruth,
Goetz, and Challinor. We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection
of claim 20. Despite nominally arguing claim 20 separately, Appellant
reiterates similar arguments made in connection with claim 6, and alleges
that the additional cited prior art fails to cure those purported
Appeal 2020-004912
Application 14/607,866
7
deficiencies. Appeal Br. 17–19. We are not persuaded by these arguments
for the reasons previously discussed.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are affirmed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–5, 7, 8,
12–19, 21,
22, 25–27,
31, 32, 34,
35
103 Tremaine,
MacDougall,
Heruth, and Goetz
1–5, 7, 8,
12–19, 21,
22, 25–27,
31, 32, 34,
35

6, 20 103 Tremaine,
MacDougall,
Heruth, Goetz,
Challinor
6, 20
Overall
Outcome:
1–8, 12–22,
25–27, 31,
32, 34, 35

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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED