Ex Parte Huynh et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 16, 2012

11202667 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 16, 2012)

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.
11/202,667 08/12/2005 Van Le Huynh ECV-5060DIV2CON1DIV1 6921
30452 7590 03/19/2012
EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES CORPORATION
LEGAL DEPARTMENT
ONE EDWARDS WAY
IRVINE, CA 92614
EXAMINER
WILLSE, DAVID H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3738
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/19/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte VAN LE HUYNH, THAN NGUYEN, HUNG LY LAM,
XIAOMING G. GUO, and RALPH KAFESJIAN
__________

Appeal 2010-011639
Application 11/202,667
Technology Center 3700
__________

Before DEMETRA J. MILLS, MELANIE L. McCOLLUM, and ERICA A.
FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

McCOLLUM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims to a suture
ring. The Examiner has rejected the claims as anticipated or obvious. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims 1-20 are pending and on appeal (App. Br. 2). We will focus
on claims 1, 9, and 15, the only independent claims on appeal, which read as
follows:
Appeal 2010-011639
Application 11/202,667

2
1. A prosthetic heart valve suture ring comprising a suturable annulus
having a compliant internal member and a cloth covering, and three evenly
spaced upwardly opening depressions formed on an internal circumference
of the suturable annulus.
9. A prosthetic heart valve suture ring comprising an annular internal
member defined by a contoured inner wall having a plurality of upwardly
opening depressions formed thereon alternating with the same number of
walled lips that extend upward from an upwardly facing ledge disposed
outward from the walled lips.
15. A prosthetic heart valve suture ring comprising an annular
internal member defined by a contoured inner wall having a plurality of
walled lips that extend upward from an upwardly facing ledge disposed
outward therefrom, and a ring washer sized to closely surround the walled
lips and rest on the ledge.
Claims 1, 2, 8-12, 14-16, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Reichart et al. (US 4,626,255, Dec. 2, 1986)
(Ans. 3).
Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Reichart (Ans. 4).
Claims 1-6, 8-12, 14-16, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Alonso (US 5,032,128, Jul. 16, 1991) (Ans. 4).
Claims 7, 13, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Alonso (Ans. 4).
Appellants argue that a “suture ring is defined conventionally, as
something attached to a ‘valve’ or ‘valve structure’ to enable sewing into
place within a heart. Stated another way, a ‘suture ring’ is separate from the
valve or valve structure and is attached thereto.” (App. Br. 7.) Appellants
argue that neither Reichart nor Alonso teach a “suture ring” having all of the
elements of claims 1, 9, and 15 (id. at 9-10 & 6).
Appeal 2010-011639
Application 11/202,667

3
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The Specification discloses:
Typically, tissue-type prosthetic valves are constructed by
sewing two or three flexible natural tissue leaflets to a generally
circular supporting wire frame or stent. The wire frame or stent
is constructed to provide a dimensionally stable support
structure for the valve leaflets which imparts a certain degree of
controlled flexibility to reduce stress on the leaflet tissue during
valve closure. A biocompatible cloth covering on the wire
frame or stent provides sewing attachment points for the leaflet
commissures and cusps. Similarly, a cloth covered suture ring
can be attached to the wire frame or stent to provide an
attachment site for sewing the valve structure in position within
the patient’s heart during a surgical valve replacement
procedure.
(Spec. ¶ [0005].)
2. In describing Figure 1, the Specification states:
FIG. 1 is an exploded assembly view, illustrating exemplary
alternative embodiments of an improved, adaptable tissue
valve 50, its individual components, and its alternative
configurations produced in accordance with the teachings of the
present invention. Valve 50 includes a pre-aligned,
standardized leaflet subassembly 52, a cloth-covered
wireform 54 and a support stent 56.
(Id. at ¶ [0055].)
3. The Specification also states that “valve 50 can be attached to a
relatively soft suture ring 60 for subsequent sewing into place within a
heart” (id. at ¶ [0056]).
4. Reichart discloses “a heart valve bioprosthesis with a fixed,
integral aortic valve of animal origin which is positioned in a resiliently
flexible, fabric-covered supporting frame” (Reichart, col. 1, ll. 4-7).
App
App

Reic
fram
fabri
Abst
aorti
sutur
ring
eal 2010-0
lication 11
5. R
hart Figur
e (22) [see
c on one e
ract).
6. A
c valve (15
ed to the d
7. A
and remov
8. A
11639
/202,667
eichart Fig
e 1 depicts
Fig. 3] . .
nd face be
s depicted
,16,17) of
acron fab
lonso disc
able valve
lonso Figu
ure 1 is re
a “heart v
. covered
ing “arran
in Figure
a kangaro
ric (23)” (i
loses a pro
member”
re 9 is rep
4
produced b
alve prost
with a dac
ged to form
2, Reichar
o is attach
d.).
sthetic hea
(Alonso,
roduced b
elow:
hesis ha[v
ron fabric
a suture
t also disc
ed inside
rt valve c
col. 1, ll. 5
elow:

ing] a supp
(23),” the
ring (14)”
loses that t
the frame
omprising
6-58).
orting
dacron
(Reichart
he “fixed
and
“a sewing

,

Appeal 2010-011639
Application 11/202,667

5
Alonso Figure 9 depicts a valve member 60 mounted by sutures 82, 84, 86 to
a sewing ring 20 (Alonso, col. 2, ll. 57-61, & col. 5, ll. 4-10).
9. Alonso also discloses that “[v]alve 60 comprises stent 61 which
is covered by cloth 62. . . . The illustrated stent is designed for mounting a
tissue valve, such as a porcine valve.” (Id. at col. 4, ll. 11-33.)
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
“It is axiomatic that, in proceedings before the PTO, claims in an
application are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent
with the specification and that claim language should be read in light of the
specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.”
In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (citation omitted &
emphasis added).
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 9, and 15 are each directed to a “prosthetic heart valve
suture ring.” Reichart and Alonso are both directed to prosthetic heart
valves (Findings of Fact (FF) 4 & 7). Reichart refers to a “suture ring” 14
that is attached to but separate from the supporting frame 22, into which the
tissue valve is attached (FF 5-6). Similarly, Alonso refers to a “sewing
ring” 20 that is attached by sutures to a valve member 60, comprising a
cloth-covered stent, which is designed for mounting a tissue valve (FF 8-9).
Consistent with how the terms “suture ring” and “sewing ring” are
used in Reichart and Alonso, the Specification refers to a suture ring as an
element that is separate from, but can be attached to, the frame or stent of a
valve structure “to provide an attachment site for sewing the valve structure
in position within the patient’s heart during a surgical valve replacement
Appeal 2010-011639
Application 11/202,667

6
procedure” (FF 1-3). In view of this description and how the terms “suture
ring” and “sewing ring” are used in Reichart and Alonso, we conclude that
the evidence of record does not support the Examiner’s position that one of
ordinary skill in the art would consider Reichart’s supporting frame or
Alonso’s cloth-covered stent as part of a prosthetic heart valve “suture ring.”
Because the Examiner relies on Reichart’s supporting frame and Alonso’s
cloth-covered stent to meet the recitations of claims 1, 9, and 15, we agree
with Appellants that the Examiner has not set forth a prima facie case of
anticipation. We therefore reverse the anticipation rejections over Reichart
and Alonso.
The Examiner has also failed to explain why the sutures rings of
claims 1, 9, and 15 would have been obvious over Reichart or Alonso. We
therefore also reverse the obviousness rejections over Reichart or Alonso of
claims 7, 13, 17, and 18, which depend from claims 1, 9, or 15.

REVERSED

lp