Ex Parte GerberDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesFeb 27, 201211606772 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 27, 2012) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation