Ex Parte Dekker et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 6, 2017

13813970 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 6, 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.
13/813,970 02/04/2013 Ronald Dekker 2010P00722WOUS 1817
24737 7590 09/08/2017
PTTTT TPS TNTFT T FfTTTAT PROPFRTY fr STANDARDS
EXAMINER
465 Columbus Avenue BOWERS, NATHAN ANDREW
Suite 340
Valhalla, NY 10595 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1799
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/08/2017 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):
marianne. fox @ philips, com
debbie.henn @philips .com
patti. demichele @ Philips, com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RONALD DEKKER, ANJA VAN DE STOLPE,
BERENT JAN VAN MEER, SAEED KHOSHEFETRAT PAKAZAD,
and ANGEL SAVOV
Appeal 2016-006737
Application 13/813,970
Technology Center 1700
Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, WESLEY B. DERRICK, and
AVELYN M. ROSS, Administrative Patent Judges.
TIMM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
STATEMENT OF CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellants2 appeal from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, and 4—9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
1 In explaining our Decision, we cite to the Specification dated February 4,
2013 (Spec.), Final Office Action dated July 24, 2015 (Final), the Appeal
Brief dated December 21, 2015 (Appeal Br.), the Examiner’s Answer dated
April 27, 2016 (Ans.), and the Reply Brief dated June 22, 2016 (Reply Br.).
2 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Koninklijke Philips N. V.
Appeal 2016-006737
Application 13/813,970
as obvious over Ingber3 in view of Okano4 and/or Hanni5 and claim 3 over
those references further in view of Xu.6 The Examiner further rejects the
claims on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as
unpatentable over claims 1—17 of US 8,506,763. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
For the reasons advanced by the Examiner, we AFFIRM. We add the
following for emphasis.
The claims are directed to device for cardiac electrophysiology
screening. See, e.g., claim 1. The device includes a substrate 10 with
cavities 42. Spec. 12:10-11. Figure 1 (o) shows one such cavity. The
device also includes a deformable layer 32 including grooves 44 and
electrodes 110 and 110' as shown in Figure l(s). Spec. 12:12—19. An
adhesive may be coated onto the grooved surface of the deformable layer 32
and cardiomyocytes 130 may be plated, e.g., in cell culture medium 150,
onto the coated surface of the deformable layer 32. Spec. 12:20-26. The
plating step leads to the spontaneous alignment of the cardiomyocytes 130 in
the grooves 44 of the deformable layer 32. Id. Figure 1 (t) depicts an
embodiment of the device and is reproduced below annotated with reference
numerals from Figures 1 (o) and 1 (s):
3 Ingber et al., US 2011/0250585 Al, published Oct. 13, 2011
4 Okano et al., US 2007/0059763 Al, published Mar. 15, 2007
5 Hanni et al., US 6, 730,199 Bl, issued May 4, 2004
6 Xu et al., US 2009/0205201 Al, published Aug. 20, 2009
2
Appeal 2016-006737
Application 13/813,970
sg (t)
i'v /V/'