Ex Parte Bauer et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 5, 2012

10923926 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 5, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte RYAN T. BAUER and YONG D. ZHAO
____________________

Appeal 2010-006219
Application 10/923,926
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before: JENNIFER D. BAHR, LINDA E. HORNER, and
WILLIAM V. SAINDON, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-006219
Application 10/923,926

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Ryan T. Bauer and Yong D. Zhao (Appellants) appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-24 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Bornzin (US 5,643,338, iss. Jul. 1,
1997). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

THE INVENTION
The claims are directed to medical electrical leads comprising pre-
shaped distal lead portions. Spec. 1, para. [0001]. Claim 1, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter.
1. A medical electrical lead, comprising:
a proximal lead body portion having a proximal
connector and extending in a distal direction from the proximal
connector;
a distal lead body portion extending from the proximal
lead body portion and comprising:
a first arcuate segment extending from the proximal lead
body portion and bending in a first direction,
an approximately straight segment extending from the
first arcuate segment and away from the longitudinal axis of the
proximal lead body portion,
a second arcuate segment extending from the
approximately straight segment and bending in a second
generally distal direction,
a third arcuate segment extending from the second
arcuate segment and bending in a third generally proximal
direction, which is also generally opposite the second direction,
the third arcuate segment having an apex directed generally in
the distal direction,
Appeal 2010-006219
Application 10/923,926

3
a distal tip segment extending from the third arcuate
segment;
a first electrode positioned along the approximately
straight segment of the lead body distal portion; and
a second electrode coupled to the distal tip segment of
the lead body distal portion.

OPINION
Each of the independent claims on appeal (claims 1, 16, 22, and 23)
requires (1) an “approximately straight segment” extending away from the
longitudinal axis of the proximal lead body portion or, in the case of claim
22, extending from a first arcuate segment, which extends from the proximal
lead body portion and forms a first angle with a first segment of the
proximal lead body portion of up to approximately 90 degrees, and (2) a first
electrode positioned along the “approximately straight segment.” The issue
presented in this appeal is whether the segment of Bornzin’s lead 30 along
which electrode 56 is positioned, as illustrated in figures 3 and 7B, is
“approximately straight,” as called for in the claims. See Ans. 3-4
(characterizing a segment “C” in an annotated reproduction of figure 7B as
approximately straight), 8 (demonstrating the asserted “approximately
straight segment” (“section C*”) in an annotated reproduction of figure 3);
App. Br. 9, ll. 3, 11-13.
The portions of Bornzin’s lead 30 labeled “segment C” and “section
C*” by the Examiner are portions of a “preformed or preshaped” “bow 90,”
which is maintained in its curved shape by the curved configuration of atrial
electrode 56. Col. 6, ll. 46, 54-55; figs. 2, 3, 7B. The curvature of atrial
electrode 56 also helps maintain atrial electrode 56 positioned at the
Appeal 2010-006219
Application 10/923,926

4
outermost portion of the bow 90. Col. 6, ll. 21-24, 54-56. Bornzin’s bow 90
is intentionally “configured such that the lead body 32 presses against the
posterior wall of the superior vena cava 64,” as shown in figure 2, which
“helps to force the atrial electrode 56 into position during implantation, and
helps to bias the atrial electrode 56 in a direction generally toward the [right
ventricular outflow tract (RVOT)] 72.” Col. 6, ll. 59-65; col. 3, l. 1.
While the claim terminology “approximately straight” may permit
some insubstantial degree of curvature or bend, we cannot agree with the
Examiner that the intentionally curved segment of Bornzin’s lead along
which the atrial electrode 56 is positioned, configured to possess a
sufficiently substantial curvature to bias/press the electrode against the
superior vena cava wall, would reasonably be viewed by a person of
ordinary skill in the art as “approximately straight.”
Therefore, the Examiner has not established by a preponderance of the
evidence that Bornzin anticipates the subject matter of independent claims 1,
16, 22, and 23, and their dependent claims. We do not sustain the rejection.

DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s decision is reversed.
REVERSED

hh