Ex Parte Noffke et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 14, 2019

14055120 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 14, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/055,120 10/16/2013
77218 7590 02/19/2019
Medtronic Vascular - APV Division
c/o IP Legal Department
3576 Unocal Place
Santa Rosa, CA 95403
UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
PaulNoffke
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
H-KN-02947US 7148
EXAMINER
BARIA, DINAH N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3774
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/19/2019 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):
rs. docketingapv@medtronic.com
rs.patents.five@medtronic.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PAUL NOFFKE, JEFFREY H. VOGEL,
and ROBERT E. SCHANTELL 1
Appeal2017-009554
Application 14/055,120
Technology Center 3700
Before FRANCISCO C. PRATS, JOHN G. NEW, and
ELIZABETH A. LA VIER, Administrative Patent Judges.
NEW, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 Appellants state that the real party-in-interest is Medtronic plc of Dublin,
Ireland, which is the ultimate parent entity of the assignee of record,
Covidien LP. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2017-009554
Application 14/055,120
SUMMARY
Appellants file this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § I34(a) from the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-3, 7-12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 21-23, 25,
26, 28, and 29, which stand rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as being obvious over the combination of over Meyer et al. (US
2012/0165920 Al, June 28, 2012) ("Meyer"), Caro et al. (US 8,236,043 B2,
August 7, 2012) ("Caro"), and Chouinard et al. (US 2010/0137974 Al, June
3, 2010) ("Chouinard"). Appellants also appeal the Examiner's Final
Rejection of claim 13, which stands rejected as unpatentable under 35
U.S.C. § I03(a) as being obvious over the combination of Meyer, Caro,
Chouinard, and Allen et al. (US 7,316,711) ("Allen").
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
NATURE OF THE CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellants' invention is directed a medical stent. Abstr.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is representative of the claims on appeal and recites:
1: A medical stent comprising:
a stent body defining a longitudinal axis and opposed
longitudinal ends, the stent body adapted to expand from an
initial condition to an expanded condition, the stent body
including a plurality of longitudinal cells, the longitudinal cells
including a first end cell and a second end cell longitudinally
opposite each other and at least one intermediate cell disposed
between the first end cell and the second end cell,
2
Appeal2017-009554
Application 14/055,120
each longitudinal cell defined at least in part by first and
second structural members extending in an undulating pattern
about the longitudinal axis;
x number of intermediate connectors interconnecting the
first and second structural members of the at least one
intermediate cell; and
at least x+ 1 number of end connectors interconnecting the
first and second structural members of the first end cell,
wherein the at least x+ 1 number of end connectors
comprises a first end connector and a second end connector
interconnecting the first and second structural members of the
first end cell,
wherein in the initial condition of the stent body, the first
end connector is arranged at a positive first oblique angle relative
to the longitudinal axis, and the second end connector is arranged
at a negative second oblique angle relative to the longitudinal
axis, and wherein in the initial condition of the stent body, each
connector of the intermediate connectors interconnecting the first
and second structural members of the at least one intermediate
cell is arranged substantially parallel relative to the longitudinal
axis.
App. Br. 28.
ISSUES AND ANALYSES
We are persuaded by, and expressly adopt, the Examiner's findings,
reasoning, and conclusions establishing that Appellants' claims are prima
facie obvious over the cited prior art. We address the arguments raised by
Appellants below.
3
Appeal2017-009554
Application 14/055,120
A. Rejection of claims 1-3, 7-12, 14, 17, and 18~
Issue
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred because combined cited
prior art neither teaches nor suggests the limitations of claim 1 reciting:
[A] plurality of intermediate connectors interconnecting the first
and second structural members of the at least one intermediate
cell; ... and wherein in the initial condition of the stent body, each
connector of the plurality of intermediate connectors
interconnecting the first and second structural members of the at
least one intermediate cell is arranged substantially parallel
relative to the longitudinal axis.
App. Br. 6.
Analysis
The Examiner finds that Meyer discloses a medical stent comprising a
stent body defining a longitudinal axis and opposed longitudinal ends, the
stent body adapted to expand from an initial condition to an expanded
condition. Final Act. 2-3 (citing Meyer Figs. IA, IB). The Examiner finds,
inter alia, that Meyer teaches that the stent body includes a plurality of
longitudinal cells, the longitudinal cells including a first end cell and a
second end cell longitudinally opposite to each other, and at least one
intermediate cell disposed between the first end cell and the second end cell.
Id. at 3 ( citing Meyer Figs. 2--4).
2 Appellants argue claims 1-3 and 7-12 together, and separately from claims
14, 17, and 18, but make essentially identical arguments for each group.
We therefore group and consider them together. See App. Br. 5-14, 19-20.
For the same reason, we group claims 15 and 22, 21 and 23, 25 and 28, and
26 and 29 together. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.47(c)(iv).
4
Appeal2017-009554
Application 14/055,120
The Examiner finds that Meyer also teaches that each longitudinal cell
is defined, at least in part, by first and second structural members extending
in an undulating pattern about the longitudinal axis. Final Act. 3 ( citing
Meyer ,r 13). The Examiner further finds that Meyer teaches x number of
intermediate connectors interconnecting the first and second structural
members of the at least one intermediate cell; and at least x+l number of end
connectors interconnecting the first and second structural members of the
first end cell and, in the initial condition, the second end connector is
arranged at a negative second oblique angle relative to the longitudinal axis.
Id. (citing Meyer Figs. IA, 2).
However, the Examiner finds Meyer fails to teach that the first end
connector is arranged at a positive first oblique angle relative to the
longitudinal axis and that each intermediate connector is substantially
parallel to the longitudinal axis in the initial and expanded configuration.
Final Act. 3.
The Examiner finds that Caro teaches a stent that comprises first and
second structural members that are connected by first and second
connectors, in which one connector is arranged at a positive first oblique
angle and a second connector is arranged at a negative second oblique angle
so as to provide space and avoiding significant twisting between first and
second structural members/circumferential parts. Final Act. 4 (citing Caro
col. 3, 11. 29-39, Figs. 3B-D).
The Examiner further finds that Chouinard teaches a stent with
intermediate connectors, illustrated in Figure 3 that have a straight (i.e.,
substantially parallel with the longitudinal axis of the stent) orientation,
which provides multiple advantages, including better transmission of
5
Appeal2017-009554
Application 14/055,120
compressive forces (resulting from balloon expansion) from one serpentine
band to another, lower likelihood of flexing due to axial loads, increased
resistance to bending and less possible interference with adjacent peak
expansion. Final Act. 4 ( citing Chouinard ,r 40, Fig. 3).
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to a person
of ordinary skill in the art of stent design to combine the teachings of the
references so that the first end connector of the stent taught by Meyer would
be arranged at a positive oblique angle relative to the longitudinal axis
( while leaving the second end connector arranged at a negative second
oblique angle), thereby having adjacent connecters alternate between
positive and negative angles. Final Act. 5. The Examiner finds that a person
of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the
references in this fashion so as to provide space and avoiding significant
twisting between first and second structural members and, additionally, to
have the intermediate connectors of the stent of Meyer arranged in a straight
and substantially parallel relation to the longitudinal axis in the initial and
expanded configuration to achieve all the above-mentioned advantages
provided by straight connectors. Id.
Appellants argue that the combined cited prior art fails to either teach
or suggest: "a plurality of intermediate connectors interconnecting the first
and second structural members of the at least one intermediate cell ... and
wherein in the initial condition of the stent body, each connector of the
plurality of intermediate connectors interconnecting the first and second
structural members of the at least one intermediate cell is arranged
substantially parallel relative to the longitudinal axis." App. Br. 6.
Appellants contend that, even assuming that it would have been obvious to
6
Appeal2017-009554
Application 14/055,120
one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the stent taught by Meyer's stent by
combining it with the teachings of Caro and Chouinard, the modification
would not have resulted in the disputed limitation. Id. According to
Appellants, if the teachings of Chouinard are considered as a whole, the
combined teachings would nevertheless not have resulted in a stent in which
the initial condition of the stent body, "each connector of the plurality of
intermediate connectors interconnecting [ ... ] first and second structural
members of [ ... ] at least one intermediate cell is arranged substantially
parallel relative to the longitudinal axis." Id. at 6-7.
Appellants point to Figure IA of Chouinard, upon which the
Examiner relied in part. Figure 1 A of Chouinard is reproduced below:
FIG.1A
Figure 1 A of Chouinard depicts a plan view of an embodiment
of a stent in an unexpanded state
Appellants then point to paragraph [0040] of Chouinard, which teaches that,
with respect to Figure IA:
7
Appeal2017-009554
Application 14/055,120
The connectors 62 of the first end region 24 have a length that
extends between serpentine bands in a direction substantially
parallel to the longitudinal axis 22. Specifically, FIG. lA shows
connectors which are substantially parallel to the longitudinal
axis joining the first end band 25 and the immediately adjacent
band 34. And, serpentine band 34 is joined to adjacent serpentine
band 36 by connectors which are substantially parallel to the
longitudinal axis. Connectors extending substantially parallel to
the longitudinal axis will be referred to herein as being "straight".
The straight connectors 62 transmit the compressive forces
resulting from balloon expansion more directly from one
serpentine band 34 to another, and are less likely to flex due the
application of an axial load. Furthermore, the straight connectors
62 offer an increased resistance to bending between serpentine
bands 34 in part because they are typically shorter in length than
angled connectors. Finally, the straight connectors 62 do not
typically interfere with the ability of adjacent peaks to expand.
App. Br. 8. However, Appellants argue, Chouinard further teaches:
Referring now to the third region 28 of the stent 10 in FIG. lA,
the connectors of the third region 28 are longer than the
connectors in the first end region and the second end region. Also,
rather than extending between the serpentine bands in a direction
substantially parallel to the longitudinal axis like in the first end
region and the second end region, the connectors of the third
region are angled, extending at an oblique angle 8 to the
longitudinal axis, as seen in FIG. lA and in greater detail in FIG.
lB. The term "oblique angle" is used herein to refer to an angle
that is non-zero and is neither perpendicular nor parallel to the
longitudinal axis of the stent.
The angled connectors 62 such as are shown in the third region
28 in FIGS. lA and lB, for example, provide greater flexibility
for improved trackability when the stent 10 is crimped onto a
balloon and improved scaffolding when the stent is in the
deployed state. Also, the angled connectors 62 allow for flexion
8
Appeal2017-009554
Application 14/055,120
between bands 40 when the crimped stent is tracked through the
anatomy. This results in a more flexible stent than would be
achieved by using only straight connectors because angled
connectors flex more than straight connectors with the application
of tensile or compression loads. Using angled connectors 62
allows for the stent peaks to be offset in the expanded state (not
shown), which improves the conformability of the expanded stent
as well as providing for improved scaffolding.
Id. ( quoting Chouinard ,r,r 44--45). Appellants argue that, even if Chouinard
teaches that the stent 10 includes connectors 62 that extend in a direction
substantially parallel to the longitudinal axis 22 in first end region 24,
Chouinard also describes that the connectors 62 in the intermediate region or
third region 28 between first end region 24 and second end region 26 extend
at an oblique angle to the longitudinal axis 22, e.g., to provide greater
flexibility for improved trackability when the stent 10 is crimped onto a
balloon and improved scaffolding when the stent is in the deployed state. Id.
Appellants therefore contend that, when the description of Chouinard
is considered in its entirety, i.e., as whole, a person of ordinary skill in the
art would have modified all of the intermediate connectors in the stent
described by of Meyers to correspond to the arrangement of the connectors
62 for the stent 10 shown in Figures IA and 3. App. Br. 8-9. According to
Appellants, in such an arrangement, the features of the stent in Figures 1 A
and 3 of Meyers characterized as end connectors by the Examiner would
appear to have been substantially parallel to the longitudinal axis of stent
and at least some of the intermediate connectors in the middle of the stent
would have extended at an oblique angle with regard to the longitudinal axis
of the stent. Id. at 9. Appellants assert that such an arrangement does not
constitute a stent:
9
Appeal2017-009554
Application 14/055,120
[W]herein in [an] initial condition of the stent body, [a] first end
connector is arranged at a positive first oblique angle relative to
[a] longitudinal axis, and [a] second end connector is arranged
at a negative second oblique angle relative to the longitudinal
axis; and wherein in the initial condition of the stent body, each
connector of [a] plurality of intermediate connectors
interconnecting first and second structural members of at least
one intermediate cell is arranged substantially parallel relative to
the longitudinal axis,
as recited in the claims. Id. At most, Appellants argue Figures IA and 3 of
Chouinard include intermediate connectors that are arranged at oblique
angles relative the longitudinal axis of the stent and also intermediate
connectors that are arranged substantially parallel to the longitudinal axis of
the stent. Id. Appellants contend that neither Chouinard nor the cited prior
art references have been shown by the Examiner to describe such a stent
configuration and, therefore, the modification of Meyer suggested by the
Examiner would not have resulted in the subject matter of the independent
claims.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. Appellants do not
dispute the Examiner's finding that Chouinard teaches: "each connector of
[a] plurality of intermediate connectors interconnecting first and second
structural members of at least one intermediate cell is arranged substantially
parallel relative to the longitudinal axis," as recited in the claims. Rather, it
is Appellants' contention that, because Chouinard teaches: "intermediate
connectors that are arranged at oblique angles relative the longitudinal axis
of the stent and also intermediate connectors that are arranged substantially
parallel to the longitudinal axis of the stent" (see App. Br. 9 (emphasis
added)) that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have understood
10
Appeal2017-009554
Application 14/055,120
Chouinard to teach a "plurality of intermediate connectors interconnecting
first and second structural members of at least one intermediate cell is
arranged substantially parallel relative to the longitudinal axis," as recited in
the claims. Id. We do not find this reasoning persuasive for several reasons.
As an initial matter, although Chouinard teaches both straight and
oblique intermediate connectors, it is not necessary for Appellants' claimed
invention to incorporate both types of connectors for Chouinard to teach the
use of the straight connectors:
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a
secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the
structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed
invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the
references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the
references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the
art.
In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,425 (C.C.P.A. 1981). As the Examiner finds,
Chouinard is cited to show that straight intermediate connectors were known
in the prior art of stent design. See, e.g., Ans. 15. The issue of whether
Appellants' claimed invention employs both types of intermediate connector
( straight and oblique) is thus immaterial to the question of whether
Chouinard teaches the use of straight intermediate connectors.
Second, the prefatory language of the claims recites: "A medical stent
comprising .... " The use of the claim term "comprising" means that other
types of intermediate connectors, including those at oblique angles, can be
included within the scope of the claim in addition to the plurality of
intermediate connectors "arranged substantially parallel relative to the
longitudinal axis. " See Crystal Semiconductor Corp. v. TriTech
11
Appeal2017-009554
Application 14/055,120
Microelectronics Int'!, Inc., 246 F.3d 1336, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (holding
that use of the transition "comprising" in the language of a claim creates a
presumption that the claim does not exclude additional, unrecited elements).
Consequently, the scope of Appellants' claims also embraces the inclusion
of additional intermediate connectors, making oblique connections, in
addition to: "the plurality of intermediate connectors ... arranged
substantially parallel relative to the longitudinal axis" recited in the claims.
Third, Appellants' claims include both straight and intermediate
connectors connecting the various structural elements of the claimed stent.
Unlike, Chouinard, Appellants' claims recite that the end connectors are at
oblique angles, whereas the intermediate connectors are straight, i.e.,
"arranged substantially parallel relative to the longitudinal axis." However,
Appellants advance no argument as to why it is necessary to the structure
function of the claimed stent that only the end connectors can be arranged at
an oblique angle to the longitudinal axis and only straight connectors can be
used as intermediate connectors. In addition to the use of the claim term
"comprising" ( which, as explained supra, potentially includes multiple types
of connectors) Appellants assert no reason as to why their intermediate and
end connectors cannot be of either, or both, types. As such, Appellants'
claims do no more than rearrange the pattern of oblique and straight
connectors taught by Chouinard. Such a rearrangement of elements already
known in the art of stent design is neither inventive nor patentable under
Section 103. See KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,416 (2007)
("The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is
likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results"),
and see id. at 41 7 ("If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable
12
Appeal2017-009554
Application 14/055,120
variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability"); see also In re Japikse, 181
F.2d 1019, 1032 (C.C.P.A. 1950) (holding that rearranging parts disclosed in
the prior art is "devoid of invention").
Nor are we persuaded by Appellants' argument that Chouinard fails to
provide a motivation to combine the straight connectors with the stent taught
by Meyer. See App. Br. 8. Chouinard expressly teaches that its straight
connectors 62:
transmit the compressive forces resulting from balloon
expansion more directly from one serpentine band 34 to another,
and are less likely to flex due the application of an axial load.
Furthermore, the straight connectors 62 offer an increased
resistance to bending between serpentine bands 34 in part
because they are typically shorter in length than angled
connectors. Finally, the straight connectors 62 do not typically
interfere with the ability of adjacent peaks to expand.
Chouinard ,r 40. Chouinard further teaches that its obliquely-angled
connectors:
provide greater flexibility for improved trackability when the
stent 10 is crimped onto a balloon and improved scaffolding
when the stent is in the deployed state. Also, the angled
connectors 62 allow for flexion between bands 40 when the
crimped stent is tracked through the anatomy. This results in a
more flexible stent than would be achieved by using only straight
connectors because angled connectors flex more than straight
connectors with the application of tensile or compression loads.
Using angled connectors 62 allows for the stent peaks to be offset
in the expanded state (not shown), which improves the
conformability of the expanded stent as well as providing for
improved scaffolding.
Id. at ,r 45. We agree with the Examiner that, because Chouinard teaches
advantages provided by both straight and oblique connectors that are
13
Appeal2017-009554
Application 14/055,120
complementary and advantageous, that it would have been obvious to
employ both straight and oblique connectors in the stent taught by Meyer.
We consequently affirm the Examiner's rejection of the claims.
B. Claims 15 and 22
Issue
Appellants next argue that the Examiner erred in finding that the
combined cited prior art teaches or suggests the limitation reciting: "wherein
the first oblique angle and the second oblique angle have substantially equal
absolute values." App. Br. 14. Claims 15 and 22 depend, respectively, from
independent claims 14 and 1, which relevantly recite: "the first end
connector is arranged at a positive first oblique angle relative to the
longitudinal axis, and the second end connector is arranged at a negative
second oblique angle relative to the longitudinal axis." App. Br. 28, 31.
Analysis
Appellants point out that the Examiner acknowledged that the
combined cited prior art fails to expressly teach that the first and second
oblique angles have substantially equal opposite values. App. Br. 15.
Appellants contend that the Examiner failed to establish that the subject
matter of claim 15 would not have been obvious as a matter of design
choice. Id. Appellants assert that the Examiner provided no support for the
finding that such a modification would have been a normal design choice,
e.g., by citing support for such an assertion in case law or the MPEP. Id.
Appellants additionally argue that the Examiner improperly relied
upon Figures 3B-3D of Caro, because the Examiner has not established that
14
Appeal2017-009554
Application 14/055,120
Caro describes that the drawings in FIGS. 3B-3D are to scale. Id. (citing
MPEP § 2125(II)). According to Appellants, the Examiner improperly relies
upon what those drawings appear to show in terms of the angles of the
connectors, because the angles would necessarily be a function of the
proportions of the illustrated structures. Id.
Furthermore, Appellants argue, Meyer teaches the arrangement of
connectors' struts of adjacent columns and not an arrangement of connectors
within the same column. App. Br. 15. Therefore, Appellants assert, Meyer
fails to provide any description regarding two connectors within the same
column, the first connector having a first oblique angle and the second
connectors having a second oblique angle, wherein the first oblique angle
and the second oblique angle have substantially equal absolute values. Id.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. Meyer expressly
teaches:
As further shown in FIGS. 2-4, connector struts 120 within a
connector column are all oriented at the same angle 124 relative
to a longitudinal axis 126 bisecting two connected struts 108.
Connector struts 120 in adjacent connector columns 116 are
oppositely oriented. Thus, angle 124a of connector struts 120 in
connector column 116a and angle 124b of connector struts 120
in connector column 116b are identical, however, they point in
opposite directions relative to the longitudinal axis bisecting the
connected turn from which the connector strut extends.
Typically, this angle will be between 35° and 50° relative to a
longitudinal axis bisecting the connected tum from which the
connector strut extends. Angle 124 is also depicted in FIG. 5.
Because FIG. 5 is a side view, only one of the two connectors
between adjacent serpentine bands is visible.
Meyer ,r 48 ( emphasis added). Furthermore, as explained supra, Chouinard
teaches straight and obliquely-angled connectors within a column. We agree
15
Appeal2017-009554
Application 14/055,120
with the Examiner that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found
it to be an obvious variation to rearrange the pattern of obliquely-angled
connectors in a column to have equal but opposing angles of orientation with
respect to the longitudinal axis of the stent, such that "the first oblique angle
and the second oblique angle have substantially equal absolute values," as
recited in claim 15. Japikse, 181 F.2d at 1032. We consequently affirm the
Examiner's rejection of the claims.
C. Claims 21 and 23
Issue
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in finding that the claims
teach or suggest that the stent of independent claims 1 and 14:
further includ[ es] a third end connector and a fourth end
connector interconnecting the first and second structural
members of the second end cell, and wherein in the initial
condition of the stent body, the third end connector is arranged
at a positive first oblique angle relative to the longitudinal axis,
and the fourth end connector is arranged at a negative second
oblique angle relative to the longitudinal axis.
App. Br. 17.
Analysis
Appellants argue that Examiner's proposed reason for modifying
Meyer with the teachings of Caro to arrive at the stent of the claims lacks a
nexus with the specific modification to Meyer proposed by the Examiner.
App. Br. 16. Appellants assert that, even if the stent described by Meyer
was modified to include one connector arranged at a positive first oblique
16
Appeal2017-009554
Application 14/055,120
angle and a second connector arranged at a negative second oblique angle to
provide "provide space and avoiding significant twisting between first and
second structural members/circumferential parts," there are countless ways
that the stent of Meyer could be modified to include one connector arranged
at a positive first oblique angle and a second connector arranged at a
negative second oblique angle although still not arriving at the subject matter
of independent claim 23. Id. at 16-17 (quoting Final Act. 9).
Appellants contend that nothing in the reason for modification
proposed by the Examiner would have led a person of ordinary skill in the
art to make the specific modification to the stent of Meyers to arrive at the
disputed limitations. Rather, Appellants allege, the Examiner appears to
have impermissibly employed hindsight reasoning in using Appellants'
Specification as a road map for the modification to the stent of Meyer to
arrive at the subject matter of claims 21 and 23. App. Br. 17.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. As we have
explained supra, oblique-angle connectors are well known in the art of stent
design, and Meyer teaches such connectors having equal and opposite
angles, i.e., having the same absolute value. A simple rearranging of parts
known in the art is not inventive. Japikse, 181 F.2d at 1032.
Furthermore with respect to Appellants' allegation that the Examiner
impermissibly employed hindsight reasoning:
Any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a
reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning, but so long as it
takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of
ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made and
does not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant's
disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper.
17
Appeal2017-009554
Application 14/055,120
In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (C.C.P.A. 1971). Appellants point
to no limitation of the claims that is not taught by the prior art and which
could have been gleaned only from the disclosures of Appellants'
Specification. We consequently affirm the Examiner's rejection of the
claims.
D. Claims 25 and 28
Issue
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in finding that the combined
cited prior art teaches or suggests the limitation of these claims reciting:
"wherein in the expanded condition of the stent body, each connector of the
plurality of intermediate connectors interconnecting the first and second
structural members of the at least one intermediate cell is arranged
substantially parallel relative to the longitudinal axis." App. Br. 17-18.
Analysis
Appellants argue that the Examiner has failed to provide reasoning to
show that the prior art teaches or suggests that each connector of a plurality
of intermediate connectors interconnecting first and second structural
members of at least one intermediate cell is arranged substantially parallel
relative to a longitudinal axis in the expanded condition of a stent body.
App. Br. 18.
The Examiner responds that both Meyer and Chouinard teach the
stents having an expanded condition. Ans. 18 (citing Meyer ,r,r 13, 28;
Chouinard ,r 18). The Examiner also finds that Chouinard teaches that the
structure of straight (i.e., substantially parallel with the longitudinal axis)
18
Appeal2017-009554
Application 14/055,120
intermediate cell connectors is known in the art, and that these straight cell
connectors provide multiple advantages, particularly, increased resistance to
bending and less possible interference with adjacent peak expansion when
the stent is expanded to its expanded condition. Id. ( citing Chouinard ,r 40).
We agree with the Examiner. We have already explained supra our
conclusion that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it
obvious to incorporate the teachings of Chouinard into the stent taught by
Meyer, including straight intermediate connectors. Chouinard further
teaches that:
The straight connectors 62 transmit the compressive forces
resulting from balloon expansion more directly from one
serpentine band 34 to another, and are less likely to flex due the
application of an axial load. Furthermore, the straight connectors
62 offer an increased resistance to bending between serpentine
bands 34 in part because they are typically shorter in length than
angled connectors. Finally, the straight connectors 62 do not
typically interfere with the ability of adjacent peaks to expand.
Chouinard ,r 40. Chouinard thus teaches that the straight connectors provide
advantages when the stent is transitioned into its expanded condition.
Furthermore, the stents of the cited prior art are designed to expand
radially via expansion of the serpentine bands. See, e.g., Meyer Figs. IC, 2,
,r,r 7, 60-61. Because the vector of radial expansion of the stent is
orthogonal to the longitudinal axis of the stent (and to that of the straight
intermediate connectors) and because the straight connectors connect
adjacent turns in the serpentine bands, we further conclude that it would
have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill that the purpose of the
straight intermediate connectors is to maintain the shape of the stent parallel
19
Appeal2017-009554
Application 14/055,120
to its longitudinal axis. We consequently affirm the Examiner's rejection of
the claims.
E. Claims 26 and 29
Issue
Finally, Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in finding that the
combined cited prior art teaches or suggests the limitations of the claims
reciting: "wherein in the initial condition of the stent body and the expanded
condition of the stent body, adjacent end connectors of the plurality of end
connectors interconnecting the first and second structural members of the
first end cell alternate between the positive first oblique angle relative to the
longitudinal axis and the negative oblique angle relative to the longitudinal
axis." App. Br. 18-19.
Analysis
Appellants argue that the Examiner's rejection fails to explain why the
cited prior art teaches or suggests the limitation reciting: "in the initial
condition of the stent body and the expanded condition of the stent body."
App. Br. 19. According to Appellants, the Examiner fails to find that the
prior art teaches or suggests that the adjacent end connectors of a plurality of
end connectors interconnecting first and second structural members of a first
end cell alternate between a positive first oblique angle relative to a
longitudinal axis and a negative oblique angle relative to the longitudinal
axis in the expanded condition of a stent body. Id.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument. As we have
explained supra, Meyer expressly teaches end connectors interconnecting
20
Appeal2017-009554
Application 14/055,120
first and second structural members of a first end cell with: "a first end cell
alternate between a positive first oblique angle relative to a longitudinal axis
and a negative oblique angle relative to the longitudinal axis in the expanded
condition of a stent body." App. Br. 19. See Meyer ,r 48. Furthermore,
Figure 1 C of Meyer depicts a stent in an expanded state, with connectors
interconnecting the first and second structural members of a first end cell at
an oblique angle in the expanded state. Because Meyer teaches that such
obliquely-angled end connectors can be of angles that are: "identical,
however, they point in opposite directions relative to the longitudinal axis
bisecting the connected tum from which the connector strut extends" (Meyer
,r 48), we conclude that a person of ordinary skill would understand that such
connectors could alternate in a stent and that they would maintain their
oblique-angle orientation relative to the longitudinal axis of the stent in the
expanded state. See Japikse, 181 F.2d at 1032. We consequently affirm the
Examiner's rejection of the claims.
F. Claim 13
Appellants argue in favor of the patentability of claim 13 by way of
reference back to their arguments made with respect to claim 1. See App.
Br. 26. No new arguments are presented in regard to Allen, the additional
reference relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting claim 13, or the
combination thereof with the other references. See id. Having reviewed the
Examiner's rejection of claim 13 (see Final Act. 12), and for the reasons
discussed supra with respect to claim 1, we are not persuaded of any
reversible error by the Examiner. We consequently affirm the Examiner's
rejection of the claim.
21
Appeal2017-009554
Application 14/055,120
DECISION
TheExaminer'srejectionofclaims 1-3, 7-13, 14, 15, 17, 18,21-23,
25, 26, 28, and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 3 7 C.F .R. § 1.13 6( a )(1 )(iv).
AFFIRMED
22