Ex Parte Hansen

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 24, 2017

12389847 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 24, 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.
12/389,847 02/20/2009 James G. Hansen 1001.2425101 3983
11050 7590 08/28/2017
SEAGER, TUFTE & WICKHEM, LLP
100 South 5th Street
Suite 600
Minneapolis, MN 55402
EXAMINER
TEMPLETON, CHRISTOPHER L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3731
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/28/2017 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):
BSC.USPTO@stwiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JAMES G. HANSEN
Appeal 2016-000510
Application 12/389,847
Technology Center 3700
Before ANNETTE R. REIMERS, JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, and
BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1,
3, 5—9, and 12—14. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a locking element for a vascular closure
device. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A device for sealing an opening in a vessel wall and/or tissue
tract, the device comprising:
Appeal 2016-000510
Application 12/389,847
an anchor member configured to be disposed adjacent to
an interior surface of the vessel wall adjacent the opening in the
vessel wall;
a filament member having a distal end coupled to the
anchor member and configured to extend proximally through the
vessel opening and/or tissue tract;
a plug member disposed about at least a portion of the
filament member and in direct contact with the anchor member;
and
a knot member disposed and tightened about the filament
member proximal of the plug member, wherein the tightened
knot member is configured to move over the filament member
and axially compress the plug member against the anchor
member, wherein the knot member is independent of the filament
member;
wherein the knot member includes a first suture having a
diameter larger than a diameter of the filament member.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Martuch
Nash
Chanduszko
Kelleher
Opolski
US 3,738,692
US 5,700,277
US 2004/0133236 A1
US 2006/0259074 A1
US 2007/0118176 A1
June 12, 1973
Dec. 23, 1997
July 8, 2004
Nov. 16, 2006
May 24, 2007
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3, and 5—8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kelleher and Martuch.
Claims 9, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kelleher, Martuch, and Chanduszko or Opolski.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Kelleher, Martuch, Chanduszko or Opolski, and Nash.
2
Appeal 2016-000510
Application 12/389,847
OPINION
Independent claim 1 requires “a plug member ... in direct contact
with the anchor member” and a “tightened knot member [] configured to
move over the filament member and axially compress the plug member
against the anchor member.” Independent claim 9 includes similar
limitations.
The Examiner finds that Kelleher’s opposing wire mesh anchors 114
and 118 teach the claimed plug member and anchor member, with particular
reference to Figure 11. Final Act. 2, 8—9. Appellant argues, and we agree,
that the opposing wire mesh anchors 114 and 118 are not in direct contact
with each other, nor does Kelleher’s member 120 axially compress the wire
mesh anchor 118 against the wire mesh anchor 114. See Br. 10. Though all
of Kelleher’s figures appear to be schematic drawings, Kelleher Figure 13a
shows the opposing wire mesh anchors 114 and 118 are separated by tissue,
thereby preventing direct contact. Because of this separation, the anchors
are also prevented from being compressed against each other. Figure 12 also
shows the separation between the opposing wire mesh anchors 114 and 118.
In contrast, Figure 11 shows almost the entire structure as a single connected
shape. In view of the overall teachings of Kelleher, we agree with Appellant
that Kelleher fails to disclose a plug member in direct contact with an
anchor member, wherein a knot/suture member is configured to axially
compress the plug member against the anchor member, as claimed. See Br.
10.
The Examiner does not rely on Martuch, Chanduszko, Opolski, or
Nash to remedy the deficiencies of Kelleher. See Final Act. 2—8.
Accordingly, the rejections do not establish a prima facie case of
3
Appeal 2016-000510
Application 12/389,847
obviousness for all of the features of the claims. Thus, we do not sustain the
rejections of independent claims 1 or 9 or their dependents.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1,3, 5—9, and 12—14 are
reversed.
REVERSED
4