Ex Parte Urich

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 21, 2013

11196044 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 21, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte ALEX URICH
____________________

Appeal 2010-011692
Application 11/196,044
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before JOHN C. KERINS, STEVEN D.A. MCCARTHY, and
STEFAN STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judges.

KERINS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-011692
Application 11/196,044

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Alex Urich (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 4, 8, 9, 12, 13, 17, 18, 21, and 37-40.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 10, 11, 14-16, 19, 20, and 22-36 are canceled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

THE INVENTION
Appellant’s invention is directed to an aspiration system for medical
devices. Independent claim 4 is illustrative:
4. A medical aspiration system, comprising:
a pump;
a tube that is connected to said pump, said
tube having an inner diameter less than 0.05 inches
but no less than 0.01 inches, and a length of at
least 3 feet, and
a filter coupled to said tube, the filter
including a filter mesh within a filter case, the
filter case having an inner surface that includes a
plurality of longitudinal grooves running along and
outside of the filter mesh.

THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner has rejected claims 4, 8, 9, 12, 13, 17, 18, 21, and 37-
40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Urich (US
2002/0128560 A1, published Sep. 12, 2002) in view of Muni (US 6,273,878
B1, issued Aug. 14, 2001), Sepetka (US 5,308,342, issued May 3, 1994) and
Luceyk (US 4,038,194, issued July 26, 1977).

Appeal 2010-011692
Application 11/196,044

3

ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that Urich teaches a medical aspiration system
comprising a filter including a filter mesh within a filter case, but fails to
teach “the filter case having an inner surface that includes a plurality of
longitudinal grooves running along and outside of the filter mesh,” as recited
in claims 4 and 13. Ans. 4. The Examiner relies on Luceyk as teaching this
missing feature, but does not initially specify what are regarded as the case
and the longitudinal grooves on an inner surface of that case. Id.
Appellant maintains that Luceyk does not teach longitudinal grooves
on an inner surface of a filter case. Appeal Br. 9. As pointed out by
Appellant, Luceyk does not teach a filter case 13 inner surface that includes
grooves, and instead teaches pleats in a filter cartridge 12 contained within
the filter case 13. Appeal Br. 9-10; Luceyk, col. 2, ll. 38-50, col. 4, ll. 33-35,
figs. 1 and 2. We agree with Appellant that there appears to be no disclosure
in Luceyk that the filter case 13 includes a plurality of longitudinal grooves.
The Examiner finds, however, in response to Appellant’s challenge,
that “[w]ith respect to Luceyk the filter can be put on its side when inserted
into the device to act as a filter, and the filter mesh of Luceyk is considered
the casing.” Ans. 9. We do not agree with the Examiner that the filter mesh
12 of Luceyk (termed “filter media in the form of a cartridge 12”, col. 2, l.
48) can reasonably be construed as a filter case. Assuming that the filter
mesh 12 were properly regarded as being the filter case, the Examiner has
not explained what structure in Luceyk would be considered the separately
claimed filter mesh within the filter case in this configuration. Along the
same lines, the Examiner’s reliance on the filter mesh 12 as the filter casing
disregards the fact that the filter mesh 12 is intended to act as the filter media
Appeal 2010-011692
Application 11/196,044

4

in the filter assembly 11. See Luceyk, col. 2, ll. 48-50. The Examiner’s
finding that Luceyk teaches a filter casing having longitudinal grooves is not
supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
Accordingly, the Examiner’s finding with respect to Luceyk teaching
the claimed limitation, “the filter case having an inner surface that includes a
plurality of longitudinal grooves running along and outside of the filter
mesh” (claims 4 and 13) is in error, and thus the conclusion that the subject
matter of the claims would have been obvious over Urich in view of Muni,
Sepetka, and Luceyk is not supported by rational underpinnings. The
rejection of claims 4, 8, 9, 12, 13, 17, 18, 21, and 37-40 is not sustained.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner has not established that Luceyk discloses or teaches a
filter including a filter mesh within a filter case, the filter case having an
inner surface that includes a plurality of longitudinal grooves running along
and outside of the filter mesh.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 4, 8, 9, 12, 13, 17, 18,
21, and 37-40 is reversed.

REVERSED

mls