Walter Savage et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 2, 2022

2021002956 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 2, 2022)

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. 14/736,180 06/10/2015 Walter T. Savage 377871-991200 7045 26379 7590 03/02/2022 DLA PIPER LLP (US) 2000 UNIVERSITY AVENUE EAST PALO ALTO, CA 94303-2248 EXAMINER MALAMUD, DEBORAH LESLIE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3792 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/02/2022 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): paloaltopatentdocket@us.dlapiper.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte WALTER T. SAVAGE, SHELLEY J. SAVAGE, DOUGLAS M. RAYMOND, and PETER D. GRAY Appeal 2021-002956 Application 14/736,180 Technology Center 3700 Before BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, CARL M. DEFRANCO, and MICHAEL L. WOODS, Administrative Patent Judges. DEFRANCO, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-18. Claims 19-30 are withdrawn. 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(a). Appellant identifies CardioThrive, Inc. as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2021-002956 Application 14/736,180 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a “multi-vector patient contact interface.” Spec. ¶ 1. Claim 1, the sole independent claim, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter and reads as follows: 1. A multi-vector patient contact interface, comprising: a first electrode pad and a second electrode pad; the first and second electrode pad each having a non- conductive substrate, two or more non-conductive adhesive regions formed on the non-conductive substrate and at least a first conductive patient contact and a second conductive patient contact wherein at least one patient contact is adhered to each non-conductive adhesive region; two or more electrical leads, wherein each conductive patient contact is electrically connected to a different electrical lead; wherein each conductive patient contact on each electrode pad is electrically isolated from the other conductive patient contacts on the same electrode pad by the non- conductive substrate and the adhesive regions; and wherein the first conductive patient contact and the electrical lead connected to the first conductive patient contact of the first electrode pad forms a separate shock vector with the first conductive patient contact and the electrical lead connected to the first conductive patient contact of the second electrode pad and the second conductive patient contact and the electrical lead connected to the second conductive patient contact of the first electrode pad forms a separate shock vector with the second conductive patient contact and the electrical lead connected to the second conductive patient contact of the second electrode pad for a defibrillation pulse. Appeal Br. 7 (Claims App.). Appeal 2021-002956 Application 14/736,180 3 REJECTIONS 1. Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jones (US 2007/0150008 A1, published June 28, 2007). 2. Claims 17 and18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Jones and Besson (US 7,215,991 B2, issued May 8, 2007). ANALYSIS Appellant argues only independent claim 1 and relies solely on that argument to support patentability of dependent claims 2-18. See Appeal Br. 6. The Examiner finds that Jones discloses all the elements of claim 1. See Ans. 4 (citing Jones ¶¶ 32, 34, 37, 39, and Figs. 1, 3-5). Appellant responds that Jones’s electrodes “cannot perform the claimed multiple shock vectors” because “the Jones system’s electrodes are very close together as shown in Figure 4 and could not be used to form a shock vector across the heart.” Appeal Br. 5-6. We disagree. Appellant misapprehends Jones’s Figure 4. Rather than depicting multiple electrodes that are “very close together,” as Appellant mistakenly believes, Figure 4 depicts a single electrode having different conductive sections 40, 42, 44 with separate leads 46, 48, 50 for coupling separately to a power source. See Jones ¶¶ 18, 36, 37. Indeed, Jones makes this abundantly clear by disclosing that [a] further variation of the invention involves use of a single electrode structure to carry electrically isolated regions, each being supplied with a different electric energy level, such that the higher energy level is applied to the defibrillation region and the lower energy level is applied to the drug delivery region. Id. ¶ 13. Appeal 2021-002956 Application 14/736,180 4 As the Examiner persuasively explains, one skilled in the art would understand from Jones’s disclosure that the multi-sectional electrode shown in Figure 4 is used in tandem with a similarly configured electrode, as shown in Figure 1, to form separate shock vectors across the heart. See Ans. 7-8. We see no error in that reasoning, and Appellant does not persuade us otherwise. Thus, we sustain the anticipation and obviousness rejections of the claims. DECISION SUMMARY Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-16 102(a)(1) Jones 1-16 17, 18 103 Jones, Besson 17, 18 Overall Outcome 1-18 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