12178534 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 14, 2015)

Ex Parte Hettrick et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 14, 2015

12178534 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 14, 2015)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/178,534 07/23/2008 27581 7590 12/16/2015 Medtronic, Inc. (CRDM) 710 MEDTRONIC PARKWAY NE MS: LC340 Legal Patents MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55432-9924 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Douglas A. Hettrick 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. P0020557 .00/LGl 0126 6503 EXAMINER HELLER, TAMMIE K ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3766 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/16/2015 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): medtronic_crdm_docketing@cardinal-ip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte DOUGLAS A. HETTRICK, TODD JON SHELDON, PAUL D. ZIEGLER, and DAVIDE. EULER Appeal2013-007067 Application 12/178,534 Technology Center 3700 Before THOMAS F. SMEGAL, MICHAEL L. WOODS, and ERIC C. JESCHKE, Administrative Patent Judges. WOODS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Douglas A. Hettrick et al. ("Appellants") seek our review under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) of the final rejection of claims 4, 8, 11, 16, and 19--24. Appeal Br. 2. Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, 10, 12-15, 17, and 18 have been cancelled. Id. at 11-12 (Claims App.); see also Ans. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We REVERSE. Appeal2013-007067 Application 12/178,534 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellants' invention relates to "a system and method for compensating for long atrial-ventricular (AV) delays encountered in cardiac pacing." Spec. para. 1. Claims 4, 11, and 16 are independent and claim 4 is reproduced below, with emphasis on a certain claim limitation at issue in this appeal. 4. A method comprising: determining whether a current atrial-ventricular (AV) delay is adequate for proper mechanical coupling of an atrium and a ventricle in a patient; and generating an additional atrial contraction within a same ventricular cycle in response to a determination that said current AV delay is inadequate; and wherein said step of determining whether the current AV delay is adequate comprises determining whether an AV delay exceeds a selected duration and whether a ventricular-atrial (VA) delay is less than a selected duration. Appeal Br. 11 (Claims App.) (emphasis added). THE REJECTIONS I. Claims 4, 8, 11, 16, and 19--24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Chirife (US 5,179,949, issued Jan. 19, 1993) in view ofBoute (US 2006/0167509 Al, published July 27, 2006). 1 Ans. 2. II. Claims 4, 8, 11, 16, and 19--24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Boute in view of Chirife. 2 Ans. 4. 1 Although the Final Rejection lists claims 2, 4--8, 10-13, and 15-24 as rejected, claims 2, 5-7, 10, 12, 13, 15, 17, and 18 were subsequently cancelled and only claims 4, 8, 11, 16, and 19-24 stand rejected. Compare Final Act. 3 (dated July 20, 2012), with Ans. 2; see also Appeal Br. 11-14 (Claims App.). 2 See supra note 1. 2 Appeal2013-007067 Application 12/178,534 ANALYSIS Rejection I: Chirife in view of Baute In the application before us, independent claims 4 and 16 each recite, "generating an additional atrial contraction within a same ventricular cycle," and independent claim 11 recites, similarly, "to cause an additional atrial pacing pulse to be delivered ... within the same ventricular cycle." Appeal Br. 11, 12 (Claims App.). Further, the Examiner and Appellants agree that "a ventricular cycle is considered to be the cycle of time between ventricular events." Ans. 3; see also Reply Br. 3 (stating, "[t]he Examiner is correct [in that a] ventricular cycle is the time between ventricular events."). The issue before us is whether Chirife discloses an "additional atrial contraction" or an "additional atrial pacing pulse," as called for in the claims. Appeal Br. 11-12 (Claims App.). In rejecting claims 4, 8, 11, 16, and 19-24, the Examiner finds that Chirife discloses a method, apparatus, and system substantially as claimed, comprising, inter alia, "to cause an additional atrial pacing pulse to be delivered to the patient's heart." Final Act 3 (citing Chirife, Fig. 5, and referring to blocks 1--4, 14, and 16). 3 Appeal2013-007067 Application 12/178,534 Figure 5 of Chirifo is reproduced, below. MEASURE 1;'.\1 !NTERYllL PAVâ€¢250 4 SEAT MOVING AVG MEAS\!RE P flATE FIG.5 14 PACE ATR:Ulil Pll.CE VENTRICLE PAVâ€¢ Sll.V + 11!.C'f-i\ICT IS SEl