Ex Parte Carrillo et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 14, 2017

13033027 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 14, 2017)

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.
13/033,027 02/23/2011 Oscar R. Carrillo JR. 10121/07502 8060
30636 7590 11/15/2017
FAY KAPLUN & MARCIN, LLP
150 BROADWAY, SUITE 702
NEW YORK, NY 10038
EXAMINER
DAVID, SHAUN L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3731
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/15/2017 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
__________

Ex parte OSCAR R. CARRILLO JR., ROBERT B. DEVRIES,
JOHN GOLDEN, JOHN A. GRIEGO, and WILLIAM J. SHAW
__________

Appeal 2016-008471
Application 13/033,0271
Technology Center 3700
__________

Before JEFFREY N. FREDMAN, RYAN H. FLAX, and
DEVON ZASTROW NEWMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

NEWMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involves claims to a device for
penetrating tissues within a living body. The Examiner entered final
rejections for anticipation and obviousness. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Boston Scientific Scimed,
Inc. App. Br. 2. We note the Appeal Brief is not paginated. We refer
herein to the Appeal Brief as if the pages were numbered consecutively, with
the title page starting at page 1.
Appeal 2016-008471
Application 13/033,027

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Background
Needle catheters are often employed to inject medication
into a body, obtain fluid and/or tissue samples, etc. In these
procedures, a needle is advanced to a target tissue site guided
using endoscopic vision systems or other imaging techniques
(e.g., ultrasound). The needle is then advanced distally from
the catheter to penetrate the target location. In biopsy
procedures, suction is then applied (e.g., via a syringe) to draw
desired sample tissue into the needle. During this process, the
needle may be moved back and forth repeatedly to harvest the
desired sample, which is drawn through the needle to a
proximal end thereof for analysis. In these cases, tissue trauma
is increased due to the increased friction between the needle
catheter and the skin and intervening tissue.
Spec. ¶ 2.
When performing a biopsy procedure, it is often desirable
to screw the needle into the target tissue without coring. This
motion allows tissue samples to be captured with less need for
suction and the consequent drawing of blood and other non-
targeted tissues into the needle. This motion, known as juicing,
is generally performed by manually rotating the proximal end
of the device to transmit the torque along the device shaft to
rotate the needle at the distal end. Unfortunately, this rotation
causes the shaft of the device to wind up (i.e., twist), reducing
the rotation of the distal tip of the needle when compared to the
degree of rotation of the proximal handle. Furthermore,
rotating the entire needle catheter may cause pain and injury.
Id. ¶ 6.
The Specification discloses a device that
permit[s] rotation of the distal tip of a needle without requiring
rotation of the proximal end thereof. Specifically, the user
applies to the device only axially directed forces (i.e., forces
directed along a longitudinal axis of the device). A portion of
this force is converted at the distal end of the device to a
Appeal 2016-008471
Application 13/033,027

3
rotational force generating a desired rotation of a needle about
the axis.
Id. ¶ 7.
The Claims
Claims 1–20 are on appeal. Claims 21–25 are withdrawn from
consideration and claims 26–30 are cancelled.2 Sole independent claim 1 is
illustrative and reads as follows:
1. A device for penetrating tissues within a living body,
comprising:
a catheter shaft extending from a proximal end to a distal
end, the catheter shaft comprising a channel extending
therethrough from the proximal end to an opening in the distal
end;
a proximal shaft extending within the channel; and
a needle rotatably coupled to the proximal shaft, the
needle comprising a tissue penetrating distal tip, a portion of an
outer surface of the needle including a first structure extending
along a path wrapping around a portion of a length of the
needle, the first structure configured to mate with a second
structure formed on a corresponding portion of an inner wall of
the catheter shaft, the first and second structures mating with
one another so that, as the proximal shaft is translated axially
through the channel, engagement between the first and second
structures rotates the needle about an axis of the channel.
App. Br. 12 (Claims Appendix).

2 App. Br. 16 (Claims Appendix).
Appeal 2016-008471
Application 13/033,027

4
The Issues
The following rejections are before us to review:
Claims 1–8, 10, 11, 17, and 20 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Pakter.3 Final Act. 3.4
Claim 9 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Pakter in
view of Fujisaki.5 Id. at 7.
Claims 12–15 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Pakter in view to Williamson.6 Id. at 8.
Claim 16 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Pakter in
view of Parihar I.7 Id. at 9.
Claims 18 and 19 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Pakter in view to Parihar II.8 Id. at 10.
Anticipation
ISSUE
Does a preponderance of the evidence support the Examiner’s finding
that Pakter teaches the claimed subject matter?
We select claim 1 as representative of the claims subject to this
ground of rejection. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
FINDINGS OF FACT (FF)
FF1. The Specification discloses:

3 US 2009/0326412 A1, pub. Dec. 31, 2009 (“Pakter”).
4 Examiner’s Final Action, mailed September 8, 2015 (“Final Act.”).
5 US 2009/0043258 A1, pub. Feb. 12, 2009 (“Fujisaki”).
6 US 6,080,173, issued June 27, 2000 (“Williamson”).
7 US 2010/0160816 A1, pub. June 24, 2010 (“Parihar I”).
8 US 2010/0160823 A1, pub. June 24, 2010 (“Parihar II”).
Appeal 2016-008471
Application 13/033,027

5
The present invention is directed to a device for penetrating
tissues within a living body, comprising a shaft extending from
a proximal end which, in an operative position, remains outside
the body to a distal end which, in the operative position, is
within a living body the shaft comprising a working channel
extending therethrough from the proximal end to the distal end
comprising an opening. The device also comprises a needle
extending within the working channel, the needle comprising a
tissue penetrating distal tip, a portion of an outer surface of the
needle including a first structure extending along a path
wrapping around a portion of a length of the needle, the first
structure configured to mate with a second structure formed on
a corresponding portion of an inner wall of the shaft, the first
and second structures mating with one another so that, as the
needle is urged axially through the working channel, the first
and second structures cause the needle to rotate about an axis of
the working channel.
Spec. ¶ 3.
FF2. Pakter discloses Figure 1, reproduced below:

Figure 1 “is a longitudinal cross-sectional view of one embodiment of a
biopsy device.” Pakter ¶ 12.
A control is configured to engage with hub 200 and to cause a
rotational motion of hub 200 about the longitudinal axis. In the
exemplary embodiment of FIG.1, a distal slot 340 is disposed at
distal end 302 of casing 300a and runs parallel to the
Appeal 2016-008471
Application 13/033,027

6
longitudinal axis. A handle 220, is connected to stem 221,
which slidably inserts through distal slot 340 and engages hub
200 at helical groove 209.
Id. ¶ 31.
FF3. Pakter discloses:
During use (e.g., after needle 600 is attached to the device and
inserted into a tissue of interest in a subject), an operator may
move control 220 back and forth along slot 340 (e.g., in the
proximal and distal directions), engaging helical groove 209
with stem 221. As a result, the translational motion of the
control is converted into rotational motion of hub 200 so that
the hub and attached needle assembly 600 will rotate around
longitudinal axis 301.
Pakter ¶ 34.
FF4. Pakter discloses Figure 3C, reproduced below:

Figure 3C “is a transverse cross-sectional view of a distal region of the
casing shown in FIGS. 3A-B, and a control.” Id. ¶ 18. Pakter discloses:
Casing 300a encloses receiving chamber 315, which generally
will have a circular cross section, as shown, to enable smooth
rotation of hub 200 within it. Control handle 220 is connected
to stem 221, which inserts through distal slot 340 to engage in a
helical groove on an external surface of hub 200 (not shown).
Id. ¶ 46.
Appeal 2016-008471
Application 13/033,027

7
Principles of Law
“[D]uring examination proceedings, claims are given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” In re Hyatt, 211
F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that Pakter discloses all of the limitations of claim
1. Final Act. 3–4. Specific to the issues on appeal, the Examiner finds
Parker discloses:
a needle (600 and hub 200) rotatably coupled to the proximal
shaft ([0034]-[0035], [0046], rotatably connected to diaphragm
assembly 400 at 310 and 350/351), the needle comprising a
tissue penetrating distal tip (611, Fig. 6A, [0057]-[0058]), a
portion of an outer surface of the needle (hub 200) including a
first structure (helical groove 209) extending along a path
wrapping around a portion of a length of the needle (Fig. 2B,
[0039]), the first structure configured to mate with a second
structure (stem 221) formed on a corresponding portion of an
inner wall of the catheter shaft ([0041]-[0042], Fig. 7A), the
first and second structures mating with one another so that, as
the proximal shaft is translated axially through the channel
([0036]), engagement between the first and second structures
rotates the needle about an axis of the channel ([0034], note that
the diaphragm assembly 400 can be translated axially through
the channel at the same time as control 220 is moved to result in
rotational movement of the needle assembly due to the
connection between the groove and the stem).
Id. at 3–4.
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner erred. App. Br. 3–8. We are not persuaded by
Appellants’ contentions of Examiner error. Accordingly, we adopt as our
own the Examiner’s findings and reasons set forth in the Final Action and
Appeal 2016-008471
Application 13/033,027

8
the Answer. See also FF1–FF4. Only those arguments actually made by
Appellants have been considered in this Decision. Arguments that
Appellants did not make in the Brief are waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv). We address Appellants’ arguments below.
Appellants argue that Pakter fails to teach “a needle coupled to [a]
proximal shaft,” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 4; Reply Br. 4. Appellants
argue that the “Examiner’s interpretation of the needle of the present claim
to include both the needle 600 and the hub 200 of Pakter” is error because
Pakter teaches that the needle assembly is removable from the hub. Id.
Appellants further argue that because “neither the needle nor the hub of
Pakter is rotatable relative to any shaft to which it is coupled,” the proposed
configuration would not allow the shaft to extend within a channel of the
catheter as required by claim 1. Id.
We begin with claim interpretation. The dispute relates to the claim
terms “needle” and “rotatably coupled.”
The Specification discloses:
a device for penetrating tissues within a living body,
comprising a shaft extending from a proximal end which, in an
operative position, remains outside the body to a distal end
which, in the operative position, is within a living body the
shaft comprising a working channel extending therethrough
from the proximal end to the distal end comprising an opening.
The device also comprises a needle extending within the
working channel, the needle comprising a tissue penetrating
distal tip, a portion of an outer surface of the needle including a
first structure extending along a path wrapping around a
portion of a length of the needle, the first structure configured
to mate with a second structure formed on a corresponding
portion of an inner wall of the shaft, the first and second
structures mating with one another so that, as the needle is
urged axially through the working channel, the first and second
Appeal 2016-008471
Application 13/033,027

9
structures cause the needle to rotate about an axis of the
working channel.
FF1 (emphasis added). This same language appears in claim 1.
Accordingly, we find that the “needle” of claim 1 as disclosed by the
Specification comprises 1) a tissue penetrating tip and 2) a portion of an
outer surface of the needle that includes a first structure extending along a
path wrapping around a portion of a length of the needle. Id. In addition,
the first structure is configured to mate with a second structure on the shaft’s
inner wall to cause the needle to rotate about an axis of the working channel
when urged axially through the channel. Id.
The Specification does not define “rotatably coupled,” but discloses
that, in relation to a pawl,
[t]he pawl 220 is rotatably coupled to the catheter 206 for
movement between an engaged position in which the pawl 220
engages the groove 218 and a retracted position in which the
pawl 220 is disengaged from the groove 218 and resides in a
recess 228 formed in the wall of the catheter 206.
Spec. ¶ 14 (emphasis added). Accordingly, we find that “rotatably coupled”
as used in the Specification comprises a connection of components for the
purpose of permitting movement between an engaged position in which
rotational movement occurs and a retracted, non-moving position.
Pakter discloses a device comprising a needle used to penetrate tissue
(a cutting needle 600), and which has a portion of an outer surface of the
needle (the hub 200) that extends along a path wrapping along a length of
the needle (see length of hub in Figure 1), which is configured to mate with
a second structure on the shaft’s inner wall (stem 221), to cause the needle to
rotate about an axis of the working channel when urged axially through the
Appeal 2016-008471
Application 13/033,027

10
channel. FF2–4. The stem 221 is movable back and forth along slot 340 to
permit engaging with helical groove 209. FF3.
We find the Examiner has the better position. Appellants’
Specification teaches that the “needle” of claim 1 comprises structures
additional to the limiting interpretation that Appellants argue applies to
Pakter’s needle (600 alone). Id. But, Appellants, in their claims or in the
Specification, have not distinguished what is and is not a “needle” outside of
the broad claim language that includes “a first structure extending along a
path wrapping around a portion of a length of the needle” and which is
“configured to mate with a second structure,” as further detailed in the
Specification. FF1. Claim 1 and the Specification support the Examiner’s
position because Pakter discloses a needle comprising these elements;
Pakter’s needle is not excluded from the scope of claim 1 when the claim is
given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the Specification.
FF2–4.
We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ further argument that “neither the
needle nor the hub of Pakter is rotatable relative to any shaft to which it is
coupled” (App. Br. 4) in light of our findings of fact (FF2–4) and the
Specification’s teaching that “rotatably coupled” comprises a connection for
the purpose of permitting movement between an engaged position in which
rotational movement occurs and a retracted, non-moving position, both of
which are taught by Pakter. Id. Accordingly, we find that Pakter discloses
both elements of claim 1.
Appellants next argue that “Pakter fails to disclose a shaft that is
translated axially through a channel so that engagement between first and
Appeal 2016-008471
Application 13/033,027

11
second structures rotates the needle about an axis of the channel.” App. Br.
6; Reply Br. 5. In Appellants’ view,
the only portion of the device that may be translated axially
through the channel is the partition 410 within the diaphragm
assembly 400[, but] the diaphragm assembly . . . does not relate
in any way to rotation of the hub or the needle assembly 600.
Rotation of the needle is solely a result of the translational
motion of the control 220 moving back and forth along slot
340. The proximal and distal movement of the partition 410
does not effect this movement of the control 220 nor the
rotational movement of the hub 200/needle, but controls only
the volume of the distal portion of the second chamber 350 that
may be in fluid communication with the lumen 310.
App. Br. 6.
The Examiner responds that claim 1 requires only that the first and
second structures mate with each other and that the movements of 1)
proximal shaft translating axially through the channel, and 2) engagement
between the first and second structures causing the needle to rotate around
an axis of the channel, occur contemporaneously. Ans. 9. The Examiner
finds “[t]he claim does not require that one movement causes the other
movement.” Id.
In Reply, Appellants argue the claim language “so that” indicates that
where “a first structure formed on an outer surface of the needle engages a
second structure on an inner wall of the catheter shaft and the engagement
between these structures causes the rotation of the needle as the shaft is
translated axially” is a causal relationship, which Pakter lacks. Reply Br. 6–
7.
We are not persuaded. As discussed above, Pakter discloses a first
and second structure mating together, and that the helical groove 209
engages with stem 221, resulting in translational motion of the control being
Appeal 2016-008471
Application 13/033,027

12
converted into rotational motion of hub 200. FF3. We find that the “so that”
language of claim 1 refers to the rotational coupling aspect: the formation of
a connection for the purpose of permitting rotational movement in the
engaged position. As the Examiner states, “[n]othing in the claim requires
axial translation of the proximal shaft through the channel to be a necessary
precondition for the engagement between the structures to rotate the needle.”
Ans. 9.
Finally, Appellants argue “Pakter does not disclose a shaft translated
axially through the channel rotating the needle in the channel.” App. Br. 7;
Reply Br. 7. Appellants argue this element is not taught because the needle
assembly “is reversibly attached to hub 200 and does not include any
structure configured to mate with a second structure to rotate the needle.”
App. Br. 7. Once again, Appellants argue the hub and needle are separate
components.
The Examiner responds that “the claimed needle is interpreted to
correspond to the combination of Pakter’s needle assembly 600 and hub
200.” Ans. 11.
As discussed above in relation to the “needle,” Appellants’ argument
is unpersuasive because claim 1 and the Specification do not exclude a hub
from the needle and, in fact, include or disclose that additional elements
comprise the needle. FF2–4.
Conclusion of Law
We affirm the rejection of claim 1 as anticipated by Pakter. Claims 2–
8, 10, 11, 17, and 20 have not been argued separately and, therefore, fall
with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appeal 2016-008471
Application 13/033,027

13
Obviousness
ISSUE
Does a preponderance of the evidence support the Examiner’s finding
that Pakter and Fujisaki suggest the claimed subject matter?
ANALYSIS
The Examiner rejects claim 9 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Pakter in view of Fujisaki. The Examiner finds
that Pakter teaches all of the limitations of claim 9 except “wherein the
length of the groove is selected to permit the needle to be fully retracted into
the catheter shaft.” Final Act. 7. The Examiner finds Fujisaki discloses a
similar tissue penetrating device comprising
a shaft (4) and a needle (12), wherein the needle and the inner
wall of the shaft include mating structures (17/22) which induce
rotation of the needle, the structure on the needle comprising a
spiral groove (17), wherein the length of the groove permits the
needle to be fully retracted into the catheter shaft . . . for the
purpose of providing a preparation state of the device for
insertion into the body before reaching the targeted area where
the needle can then be projected out of the shaft for insertion
into the targeted living tissue.
Id.
The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to the skilled
artisan
to modify Pakter’s device so that the length of the groove
permits the needle to be fully retracted into the shaft, as taught
by Fujisaki, in order to provide a preparation state of the device
for insertion into the body before reaching the targeted area
Appeal 2016-008471
Application 13/033,027

14
where the needle can then be projected out of the shaft for
insertion into the targeted living tissue.
Id.
We adopt as our own the Examiner’s findings of fact and conclusions
regarding the teachings of Pakter and Fujisaki with regard to claim 9. Id.
Appellants do not advance any substantive argument regarding this
rejection.9 Accordingly, we affirm the rejection. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2015).
ISSUE
Does a preponderance of the evidence support the Examiner’s finding
that Pakter and Williamson suggest the claimed subject matter?
ANALYSIS
The Examiner rejects claims 12–15 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as obvious over Pakter in view to Williamson. The Examiner finds that
Pakter teaches all of the limitations of claims 12–15 except
wherein the abutment is a pawl rotatably coupled to an inner
surface of the catheter shaft; a biasing member coupled between
the catheter and the pawl biasing the pawl toward the engaged
position; wherein distal surfaces of the groove are ramped to
enable the pawl to ratchet along an outer surface of the distal
portion of the needle as the needle is withdrawn proximally into

9 Appellants assert that “Fujisaki fails to cure the deficiencies of Pakter and
that Fujisaki and Pakter, taken alone or in combination, fail to disclose or
suggest the recitation of claim 1. Specifically, Fujisaki also fails to teach a
needle rotatably coupled to a proximal shaft.” App. Br. 8. Such an
argument is not sufficient as a separate argument for patentability of these
claims. In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (noting that
separately arguing a claim requires “more substantive arguments in an
appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked
assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art.”).
Appeal 2016-008471
Application 13/033,027

15
the catheter shaft without rotating about the axis; and wherein
distal surfaces of the pawl are ramped to enable the pawl to
ratchet along an outer surface of the distal portion of the needle
as the needle is withdrawn proximally into the catheter shaft
without rotating about the axis.
Final Act. 8. The Examiner finds Williamson discloses a similar tissue
penetrating device comprising a shaft, a tissue punch analogous to the
needle, and
wherein an abutment (82) is moveable between an engaged
position in which the groove (helical groove 72 of body 71) is
engaged and a retracted position in which the body 71 is freed
to move axially through body 18 without rotating about the
longitudinal axis; wherein the abutment is a pawl rotatably
coupled to an inner surface of body 18; a biasing member
(spring 84) coupled between body 18 and the pawl 82 biasing
the pawl towards the engaged position.
Id. at 8–9. The Examiner further finds the distal surfaces of the groove are
shaped to enable the pawl to
ratchet along an outer surface of the body [as it is] withdrawn
proximally into body 18 without rotation . . . [to allow]
selective coupling of the body with the tissue punch so that
when tissue punch is linearly translated, the tissue punch is
either also rotated at the same time or is not rotated at all.
Id. at 9.
The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to the skilled
artisan “to modify . . . Pakter’s device with Williamson’s mechanism for
selectively coupling translation of the needle with rotation of the needle in
order to allow the needle to be capable of linear translation without
necessitating rotation.” Id.
We adopt as our own the Examiner’s findings of fact and conclusions
regarding the teachings of Pakter and Williamson with regard to claims 12–
Appeal 2016-008471
Application 13/033,027

16
15. Id. Appellants do not advance any substantive argument regarding this
rejection. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection.
ISSUE
Does a preponderance of the evidence support the Examiner’s finding
that Pakter and Parihar I suggest the claimed subject matter?
ANALYSIS
The Examiner rejects claim 16 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Pakter in view of Parihar I. The Examiner finds
that Pakter teaches all of the limitations of claim 16 except a mechanism
moving the pawl to the retracted position when the needle has reached a
distal most position and releasing the pawl to move back to the engaged
position when the needle is fully retracted into the catheter shaft. Final Act.
9. The Examiner finds Parihar I discloses a similar tissue penetrating device
comprising “an actuator (button 1282a) enabling a user to move an abutment
(pawl 1286a) between retracted and engaged positions . . . for the purpose of
allowing the user to selectively engage the abutment with the ratchet to
allow the ratchet to rotate in a specified direction.” Id. at 9–10. The
Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan
to modify Pakter’s device with the actuator taught by Parihar in
order to allow the user to selectively determine when linear
translation of the needle should correspond to rotational
movement of the needle (when the abutment engages the
needle) or when linear translation of the needle should not
result in simultaneous rotational movement of the needle (when
the abutment does not engage the needle) [and to permit the
Appeal 2016-008471
Application 13/033,027

17
user to manipulate the pawl between the retracted to engaged
positions].
Id. at 10.
We adopt as our own the Examiner’s findings of fact and conclusions
regarding the teachings of Pakter and Parihar I with regard to claim 16. Id.
Appellants do not advance any substantive argument regarding this
rejection. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection.
ISSUE
Does a preponderance of the evidence support the Examiner’s finding
that Pakter and Parihar II suggest the claimed subject matter?
ANALYSIS
The Examiner rejects claims 18 and 19 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Pakter in view to Parihar II. The Examiner finds
that Pakter teaches all of the limitations of claims 18 and 19 except “wherein
a pitch of the groove varies along a length of the groove; and wherein the
pitch of the groove is reduced at least one of the proximal and distal ends
thereof relative to a pitch of a central portion of the groove.” Final Act. 10–
11. The Examiner finds Parihar II teaches a device
comprising a helical member (254) having a groove (track 266)
wherein a pitch of the groove varies along a length of the
groove and wherein the pitch of the groove is reduced at the
distal end of the pitch (258) relative to a pitch at the central
portion (256) of the groove . . . for the purpose of controlling
the rate of translation of the cutter.
Id. at 11.
The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to the skilled
artisan “to modify Pakter’s device with the variable pitch groove taught by
Appeal 2016-008471
Application 13/033,027

18
Parihar2 in order to allow variable controlled rates of translation of the
needle.” Id.
We adopt as our own the Examiner’s findings of fact and conclusions
regarding the teachings of Pakter and Parihar II with regard to claims 18 and
19. Id. Appellants do not advance any substantive argument regarding this
rejection. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection.
SUMMARY
We affirm the rejection of claims 1–8, 10, 11, 17, and 20 under pre-
AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Pakter.
We affirm the rejection of claim 9 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Pakter in view of Fujisaki.
We affirm the rejection of claims 12–15 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Pakter in view to Williamson.
We affirm the rejection of claim 16 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Pakter in view of Parihar I.
We affirm the rejection of claims 18 and 19 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Pakter in view to Parihar II.
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