Ex Parte Gerber

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 27, 2012

11606772 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 27, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte MARTIN T. GERBER
__________

Appeal 2010-010756
Application 11/606,772
Technology Center 3700
__________

Before LORA M. GREEN, JEFFREY N. FREDMAN, and
ERICA A. FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

GREEN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-38. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).

Appeal 2010-010756
Application 11/606,772

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims are drawn to methods of implanting a medical lead, and
may be found in the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 18-27).
The following grounds of rejection are before us for review:
I. Claims 1-20 and 22-38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being rendered obvious by the combination of Mamo
1
and Weiner
2

(Ans. 3).
II. Claim 1 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being rendered
obvious by the combination of Mamo and Duysens
3
(Ans. 12).
III. Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
rendered obvious by the combination of Mamo and Duysens, as
further combined with Weiner (Ans. 13).
We agree with the rejections and responses to Appellant’s arguments
that are set out in the Examiner’s Answer, and therefore adopt the
Examiner’s reasoning as our own. Specifically, Mamo teaches all of the
steps required by the claimed method, except for the specific nerves being
targeted, that is, an occipital nerve or a trigeminal nerve. Weiner teaches
why the ordinary artisan would place a medical lead proximate to an
occipital nerve, and Duysens teaches why the ordinary artisan would place a
medical lead proximate to a trigeminal nerve. Thus, we agree with the
Examiner that it would have been within the level of skill of the ordinary

1
Mamo et al., US 2002/0147485 A1, published Oct. 10, 2002.
2
Weiner, US 6,505,075 B1, issued Jan. 7, 2003.
3
Duysens et al., US 6,308,105 B1, issued Oct. 23, 2001.
Appeal 2010-010756
Application 11/606,772

3
artisan to use the method of Mamo to target the occipital nerve as taught by
Weiner, or to target a trigeminal nerve as taught by Duysens.
The Examiner’s rejection is affirmed.

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

cdc