Ex Parte Sharp et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 27, 201612812310 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 27, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/812,310 07/09/2010 24955 7590 ROGITZ & AS SOCIA TES Jeanne Gahagan 750B STREET SUITE 3120 SAN DIEGO, CA 92101 01/29/2016 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Bradley J. Sharp 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. 1208.008 6126 EXAMINER WEISS, JESSICA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3776 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01129/2016 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): Noelle@rogitz.com eofficeaction@appcoll.com J ohn@rogitz.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte BRADLEY J. SHARP, WAYNE A. NODA, and STEPHEN G. BELL Appeal2013-010983 Application 12/812,310 1 Technology Center 3700 Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, GEORGE R. HOSKINS, and LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges. STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Bradley J. Sharp et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 13-16. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). SUMMARY OF DECISION We REVERSE. According to Appellants, the real parties in interest are Insightra Medical, Inc. and Nanyang Technological University. Appeal Br. 2 (filed May 16, 2013). Appeal2013-010983 Application 12/812,310 INVENTION Appellants' invention is a tissue retractor for retracting the periphery of an incision to open the incision further in order to permit a surgeon to operate. Spec. 1. Claims 13 and 15 are independent. Claim 13 is illustrative of the claimed invention and reads as follows: 13. A tissue retraction assembly, comprising: a hook member formed with a distal tissue engagement feature configured to engage a periphery of an opening in a patient's body such that when the hook member is pulled away from the opening, the distal engagement feature remains in contact with the periphery of the opening to pull the periphery outward, the hook member also being formed with a proximal aperture; a flexible strap extending through the proximal aperture of the hook member to form a loop, the strap defining first and second end segments; and a flexible base defining a bottom surface for conforming to a portion of the patient without surrounding the opening in the patient's body, the bottom surface having an adhesive thereon for sticking to a surface, the first end segment of the strap being formed integrally with the base, the second end segment of the strap being removably engageable by hand with a top surface of the base such that the second end segment can be detached from the base by hand, pulled to cinch the loop formed by the strap and thereby pull the hook member to retract tissue away from the opening in the patient's body, and reattached to the top surface of the base by simply pressing the second end segment onto the top surface of the base by hand to thereby hold the loop cinched. REJECTIONS The following rejections are before us for review: 2 Appeal2013-010983 Application 12/812,310 I. The Examiner rejected claims 13 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rozek (US 2,493,598, iss. Jan. 3, 1950), Jackson (US 5,476,478, iss. Dec. 19, 1995), and Byrd (US 5,676,137, iss. Oct. 14, 1997). II. The Examiner rejected claims 14 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rozek, Jackson, Byrd, and Fowler (US 5,964,698, iss. Oct. 12, 1999). ANALYSIS Each of independent claims 13 and 15 requires, inter alia, "a flexible base defining a bottom surface for conforming to a portion of the patient without surrounding the opening in the patient's body." See Appeal Br. 9-- 10 (emphasis added). The Examiner finds that Rozek' s canvas mat 10 corresponds to the claimed "flexible base." See Non-Final Rej. 2-3 (mailed May 15, 2013). However, in contrast to the claimed "flexible base," Rozek's canvas mat 10 surrounds wound 46 and thus cannot include "a bottom surface for conforming to a portion of the patient without surrounding the opening in the patient's body." See Rozek, Fig. 1 (emphasis added). Therefore, Rozek fails to disclose a "flexible base," as called for by each of independent claims 13 and 15. Furthermore, the Examiner's use of the disclosures of Jackson, Byrd, and Fowler does not remedy the deficiency of Rozek as discussed supra. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 13 and 15 as being 3 Appeal2013-010983 Application 12/812,310 unpatentable over Rozek, Jackson, and Byrd, and of claims 14 and 16 as being unpatentable over Rozek, Jackson, Byrd, and Fowler. SUMMARY The Examiner's decision to reject claims 13-16 is reversed. REVERSED tkl 4 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation