Medtronic, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 15, 2021

2020003892 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 15, 2021)

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.
14/920,363 10/22/2015 Xin Su 4944.358US01 8764
145379 7590 09/15/2021
PATTERSON THUENTE PEDERSEN, P.A.
80 South Eighth Street
4800 IDS Center
Minneapolis, MN 55402
EXAMINER
MELHUS, BENJAMIN S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3791
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/15/2021 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):
efsuspto@ptslaw.com
rs.patents.two@medtronic.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte XIN SU,
TIMOTHY J. DENISON, and
BRETT KNAPPE
____________

Appeal 2020-003892
Application 14/920,363
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before PHILLIP J. KAUFFMAN, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and
TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.

HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 11–28, which are all of the pending claims.2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies Medtronic, Inc. as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 2.
2 Claims 1–10 have been withdrawn from consideration. See Appeal Br. 25–
27 (Claims Appendix).
Appeal 2020-003892
Application 14/920,363

2
CLAIMED INVENTON
Appellant’s invention “is directed to acoustic sensing.” Spec. ¶ 2. In
particular, Appellant’s invention monitors one or more acoustic signals to
detect a medical condition and tracks the status or progression of a patient
disease state. Id. ¶ 4. The manner in which the system monitors the one or
more acoustic signals is configured based on a patient prescription
established by a caregiver. Id.
Claims 11 and 23 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 11,
reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter:
11. A medical device system comprising:
an implantable telemetry module configured to receive a
patient prescription comprising information related to a selection
of at least one acoustic sensing program to be performed for a
patient based on a disease state of the patient;
an acoustic sensor configured to sense an acoustic signal; and
a processor configured to:
select the at least one acoustic sensing program from a
plurality of acoustic sensing programs based upon the
information regarding the disease state of the patient as
received in the patient prescription, each selected at least one
acoustic sensing program of the plurality of acoustic sensing
programs associated with detection of at least one
characteristic of the sensed acoustic signal associated with the
disease state of the patient;
set at least one patient specific threshold for the at least
one characteristic of the sensed acoustic signal based on the
patient prescription, wherein the patient specific threshold
corresponds to a change in the disease state of the patient;
receive the sensed acoustic signal from the acoustic
sensor;
Appeal 2020-003892
Application 14/920,363

3
analyze the sensed acoustic signal using the selected
acoustic sensing program to detect a presence of the at least
one characteristic in the sensed acoustic signal; and
generate an indication associated with the disease state of
the patient based on a comparison of the at least one
characteristic of the sensed acoustic signal and the patient
specific threshold.
Appeal Br. 27–28 (Claims Appendix).
REJECTION
Claims 11–27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Thompson (US 2008/0294209 A1, pub. Nov. 27, 2008) and Thiagarajan
(US 2008/0273709 A1, pub. Nov. 6, 2008).
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Thompson, Thiagarajan, Gerber (US 2008/0300651 A1, pub. Dec. 4, 2008)
and Huiku (US 2010/0081942 A1, pub. Apr. 1, 2010).
ANALYSIS
We are persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 11 and
23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, at least because the combination of Thompson
and Thiagarajan does not teach or suggest a processor configured to
select the at least one acoustic sensing program from a
plurality of acoustic sensing programs based upon the
information regarding the disease state of the patient as
received in the patient prescription, each selected at least one
acoustic sensing program of the plurality of acoustic sensing
programs associated with detection of at least one
characteristic of the sensed acoustic signal associated with the
disease state of the patient[,]
as recited in claim 11, and similarly recited in claim 23. Appeal Br. 17–22;
see also Reply Br. 3–5. In rejecting independent claims 11 and 23 under 35
Appeal 2020-003892
Application 14/920,363

4
U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner relies primarily on Thompson as teaching the
claimed controller functionality. See Final Act. 4–6, 8–10.
Thompson relates to using sensor data acquired from an implantable
medical device to determine if a target level of therapy benefit has been
achieved. Thompson ¶ 1. A heart failure patient’s response to decongestive
therapy is assessed to balance the therapeutic need for fluid removal during
acute decongestion against the potential risks associated with over-diuresis.
Id. ¶ 26. Specifically, Thompson uses a relationship between sensor data
and a threshold to determine whether a target level of patient diuresis is
achieved. Id. ¶ 36. The physiological sensor data includes data developed
using a wide range of sensors, such as implantable device-based sensors and
sensors for obtaining heart sounds. Id. ¶ 38. Physiologic sensor data is
monitored to determine if a threshold representing an optimal or desirable
level of therapy has been met. Id. ¶ 39. Data from multiple sensors of
different types may be monitored. Id. ¶ 40; see also id. ¶ 61 (describing the
use of a motion sensor for sensing patient activity and respiration and
cardiac related conditions). Signals indicative of a patient’s heart failure
status and diuresis may take several forms, including electrical,
electromagnetic, optical, or acoustic signals. Id. ¶ 44.
The Examiner acknowledges that Thompson does not teach the
argued limitation, and relies on Thiagarajan to cure the deficiency. See id.
Final Act. 5–6 (citing Thiagarajan ¶¶ 9–16, 50–77), 10. Thiagarajan relates
to tuning, analyzing, and displaying heart sounds. Thiagarajan ¶ 9. A heart
sounds transducer of a tunable auscultation system senses heart sounds from
a chest location of a patient. Id. ¶ 10. The heart sounds pass through a
Appeal 2020-003892
Application 14/920,363

5
preconditioning circuit and then to an analysis tool, which filters frequencies
of the heart sounds to extract segments of interest. See id. ¶¶ 10–14.
For example, a traditional, acoustic Bell/Diaphragm head stethoscope
has two opposing sensors, a Bell-side sensor and a Diaphragm-side sensor.
Id. ¶¶ 51, 57. In one embodiment, device 100 asks a user whether device
100 should sense in Bell mode, Diaphragm mode, or another filter preset
mode. Id. ¶ 64. In another embodiment, rather than a user selecting a mode,
device 100 selects a default mode by sensing whether a Bell side sensor or
Diaphragm side sensor of the Bell/Diaphragm head stethoscope is touching
the chest wall of the patient. Id. ¶ 57; see also id. ¶ 55 (describing that
decomposition of heart sound signals using a Diaphragm mode captures
heart sound signals in the complete range of Diaphragm frequencies;
whereas, decomposition of heart sound signals using a Bell mode captures
heart sound signals in the complete range of Bell frequencies).
The Examiner finds that selecting an acoustic sensing mode from a
plurality of modes based upon a user’s input commands, as disclosed by
Thiagarajan, teaches the claimed selecting step, as recited in claim 11, and
similarly recited in claim 23. Final Act. 6, 10. Further, the Examiner
reasons that it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to
modify Thompson’s telemetry module to incorporate Thiagarajan’s sensing
mode selection “to help distinguish sounds of interest from signal noise” and
to “include multiple modes of operation (i.e. sensing programs) familiar to
physicians (i.e. Bell mode and Diaphragm mode).” Id. at 6 (citing
Thiagarajan ¶¶3, 51), 10. Yet, Thiagarajan does not teach or suggest that the
selection of a Bell mode or Diaphragm mode is “based upon the information
regarding the disease state of the patient as received in the patient
Appeal 2020-003892
Application 14/920,363

6
prescription” or that each selected mode is “associated with detection of at
least one characteristic of the sensed acoustic signal associated with the
disease state of the patient,” as required by claim 11, and similarly required
by claim 23. Further, it is unclear why or how Thiagarajan’s disclosure of
operating a Bell/Diaphragm stethoscope by selecting a Bell or Diaphragm
mode would teach or suggest one of ordinary skill in the art to modify
Thompson’s method for assessing a heart failure patient’s response to
therapy by configuring the processor to arrive at these missing claim
limitations.
For at least the above reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of
claims 11 and 23, and dependent claims 12–22 and 24–27 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Thompson and Thiagarajan. The Examiner’s
rejection of claim 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Thompson,
Thiagarajan, Gerber, and Huiku does not cure the deficiency in the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. See
Final Act. 11–12. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 28
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for the same reasons set forth above with respect to
independent claim 11.

Appeal 2020-003892
Application 14/920,363

7
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§  Basis/References Affirmed Reversed
11–27 103 Thompson, Thiagarajan 11–27
28 103
Thompson,
Thiagarajan,
Gerber, Huiku
28
Overall
Outcome 11–28

REVERSED