Ex Parte Yadin et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 20, 2012

11010730 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 20, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte AMNON YADIN and DARYUSH MIRZAEE
____________________

Appeal 2010-003170
Application 11/010,730
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before: JOHN C. KERINS, PHILLIP J. KAUFFMAN, and
JAMES P. CALVE, Administrative Patent Judges.

KAUFFMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-003170
Application 11/010,730
2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims
1-19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.

THE INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention relates to “a stent for the treatment of
lesions and other problems in or near a vessel bifurcation.” Spec. 1, para.
[0002]. Independent claim 1, the sole independent claim on appeal, is
reproduced below (emphasis added):
1. A bifurcation stent, comprising:
a tubular member having an inner diameter and an outer
diameter defining a wall therebetween, the wall having a
geometrical configuration defining a pattern; and
an expandable branch structure formed in the wall of the
tubular structure and interrupting the wall pattern, the
expandable branch structure being connected to the tubular
member at a plurality of locations, the expandable branch
structure having a first ring connected to the tubular member, a
second ring connected to the first ring and a third ring
connected to the second ring,
wherein the expandable branch structure includes a distal
portion and a proximal portion, and at least one partial distal
ring is connected to the first ring at the distal portion and at
least one partial proximal ring is connected to the first ring at
the proximal portion, and wherein the rings and the partial rings
at the proximal and distal portions form a lattice portion,
wherein the third ring substantially surrounds and defines
a central branch opening, and
wherein the expandable branch structure is movable from
an unexpanded configuration to an expanded configuration, in
the unexpanded configuration the expandable branch structure
is disposed along the wall and in the expanded configuration
the expandable branch structure extends outwardly from the
tubular member.

Appeal 2010-003170
Application 11/010,730
3
REJECTIONS
Appellants seek review of the following rejections:
1. Claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10, 11, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Penn (US 5,906,640; iss. May 25, 1999).
2. Claims 2 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Penn and
Schmitt (US 6,187,033 B1; iss. Feb. 13, 2001).
3. Claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Penn and
Globerman (US 6,090,127; iss. Jul. 18, 2000).
4. Claims 12-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Penn and
Berenstein (US 2003/195609 A1; pub. Oct. 16, 2003).

OPINION
Independent claim 1 is directed to a bifurcated stent that includes
partial rings (at least one partial distal ring and at least one partial proximal
ring) and rings (first, second, and third rings). By reciting both rings and
partial rings, the claim language draws a distinction between the two, and
thus what is not a partial ring is a complete ring. The Specification does not
define the claim terms “ring” or “partial ring.” “Ring” is commonly
understood to mean a circular band of any dimension, used as a means of
attachment.1 This definition is consistent with the Specification. 2

1 “Ring,” “[a] circular band of any dimension, used as a means of
attachment, suspension, compression, etc.”, n. def. 3a. OXFORD ENGLISH
DICTIONARY (1989) available at www.OED.com.
2 First, second, and third rings 141, 142, 143 are described as concentric, or
non-concentric (descriptive words related to circles and spheres), and as
“surrounding” a central branch opening 108 (implying a continuous circle).
Spec. para. [0030]; figs. 3, 5, 6. Partial rings 144 and 145 are depicted as
arcs (a portion of the circumference of a circle). Spec. figs. 3, 5, 6.
Appeal 2010-003170
Application 11/010,730
4
Each rejection relies on the Examiner’s finding that Penn’s Figure 18
depicts modified first stent section 108 as including first, second, and third
rings as claimed.3 Ans. 3-6 (rings identified in the Examiner’s annotated
version of Penn’s Figure 18).4
Penn discloses a stent 100 comprised of first stent section 108
connected at intersection point 107 to a second stent section similar to
section 55. Penn, col. 10, ll. 57-59; col. 11, ll. 36-39; figs. 2-4, 16, 18. First
stent section 108 comprises a cylindrical tube having a beveled cut (like
beveled cut 50 in first stent section 45) at one end. Col. 7, ll. 30-32; col. 10,
ll. 55-57; col. 10, l. 60 – col. 11, l. 5; fig. 18 (construction of stent 100 in
Figures 15-18 is similar to stent 10 in Figures 1-4). Due to the beveled cut,5
at least the “first ring” identified by the Examiner6 is a portion of the
circumference of a circle and is not a continuous circle. Penn, fig 18.
Consequently, we cannot find by a preponderance of the evidence that Penn
discloses a first ring as called for in claim 1. See App. Br. 8 (“no portion of
first stent section 108 can be considered the ‘first ring’ recited in claim 1”);

3 The Examiner does not modify this finding in the obviousness rejections.
Ans. 5-6.
4 The Examiner seems to have interpreted “ring” as an arc (“structure that
extends about the circumference of an arc”). Ans. 3. Such interpretation is
inconsistent with the plain language of the claim, and is inconsistent with the
Specification in that an “arc” is not concentric or non-concentric, and does
not surround. See claim construction, supra.
5 Though element 113 is identified as the beveled cut of Figure 18 (Col. 11,
ll. 2-4) it is not so labeled in Figure 18.
6 Rather than a stent constructed of wire bent to a selected shape, Penn’s
stent sections are formed from a substantially cylindrical tube having
portions removed. Col. 5, ll. 15-25; fig. 1. The portions that remain are
referred to as a porous surface of the cylindrical stent (e.g., porous surface
110). It is one of these porous surfaces structures that the Examiner
identifies as the first ring. Ans. 3.
Appeal 2010-003170
Application 11/010,730
5
Reply Br. 2-3. As such, we cannot sustain the rejection of independent
claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-19.

DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-19.

REVERSED

nlk