St. Jude Medical, Atrial Fibrillation Division, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 28, 2020

14283818 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 28, 2020)

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.
14/283,818 05/21/2014 Jonathan L. Podmore 0E-0414USC3-82410.0554 5542
55962 7590 04/28/2020
Wiley
Patent Administration
1776 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
EXAMINER
ZINK, AMANDA L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3794
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/28/2020 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):
ASJM_Patents@abbott.com
ptodocket@wiley.law
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JONATHAN L. PODMORE, GREGORY J. KAMPA, and
ANDREW RADIN
____________

Appeal 2019-005540
Application 14/283,818
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, and
SEAN P. O’HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.

O’HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 12–21.2 We have jurisdiction over this appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM.
In explaining our Decision, we refer to the Specification filed May 21,
2014 (“Spec.”), the Final Office Action mailed May 31, 2018 (“Final Act.”),

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as St. Jude Medical,
Atrial Fibrillation Division, Inc. Appeal Br. 2.
2 Claim 1 is canceled and claims 2–11 are withdrawn. Appeal Brief 4.
Appeal 2019-005540
Application 14/283,818

2
the Appeal Brief filed December 7, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”), and the Examiner’s
Answer mailed March 22, 2019 (“Ans.”).
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
Appellant’s claimed invention relates to ablation devices. Spec. ¶ 2.
Claims 12 and 14 are independent. Claim 12, reproduced below from page
12 (Claims Appendix) of the Appeal Brief, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
12. A component for insertion into a lumen of a medical
catheter, comprising:
a cylindrical body including a wall that defines a plurality
of lumens, the plurality of lumens comprising:
a peanut shell-shaped central lumen extending
along a central longitudinal axis of the cylindrical body
and having a cross-sectional area; and
at least two additional lumens positioned
peripheral of the peanut shell-shaped central lumen, each
of the at least two additional lumens having a cross-
sectional area smaller than the cross-sectional area of the
central lumen, and
wherein the wall proximate each of the at least two
additional lumens is configured to secure a pull wire thereto.
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references in rejecting
the claims on appeal:
DeLaRama US 5,381,782 Jan. 17, 1995
Konstorum US 6,749,560 B1 June 15, 2004
Hyde US 7,087,064 B1 Aug. 8, 2006
Appeal 2019-005540
Application 14/283,818

3
REJECTIONS3
I. Claims 12–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over DeLaRama and Hyde.
II. Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over DeLaRama, Hyde, and Konstorum.
ANALYSIS
Rejection I – Obviousness based on DeLaRama and Hyde
In contesting this rejection, Appellant presents arguments for
independent claims 12 and 14 together and does not separately argue
dependent claims 13 and 15–20. See Appeal Br. 9. We select claim 12 as
representative, and claims 13–20 stand or fall with claim 12. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2018).
The Examiner finds that DeLaRama discloses a catheter component
including, in relevant part, “a cylindrical body including a wall that defines a
plurality of lumens (view figures 6–11) with a central lumen and multiple
peripheral lumens placed on opposite sides of the central lumen (view cross-
sectional views in figures 6, 8, 9 and 11).” Final Act. 5. The Examiner finds
that DeLaRama “fails to explicitly disclose that the central lumen is an
hourglass-shaped central lumen extending along a central longitudinal axis
and having a cross-sectional area.” Id. However, the Examiner finds that
“Hyde discloses a catheter device which has an hourglass shaped central
lumen (view figures 7–10).” Id.; see also id. at 7 (finding that “Hyde

3 A rejection of claims 12–21 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, and a
rejection of claims 14–21 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, were
withdrawn by the Examiner. Ans. 6; Final Act. 3–4.
Appeal 2019-005540
Application 14/283,818

4
discloses a medical catheter with a peanut shell shaped central lumen”). The
Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to modify
DeLaRama’s central lumen to have a peanut shell shape because it “would
allow for larger and more irregularly shaped objects (such as a needle or
guide) to be placed through the center of the catheter.” Id. at 6.
Appellant argues “that Hyde is not a component (or member) inserted
into a catheter, but rather a catheter itself.” Appeal Br. 9 (citing Final
Act. 5). According to Appellant, “[a]t most, therefore, the combination of
DeLaRama and Hyde results in a catheter having a peanut shell-shaped
central lumen and at least two peripheral lumens.” Id. We are not
persuaded by Appellant’s argument because, as discussed above, the
Examiner does not rely on Hyde for teaching a component for insertion into
a catheter. See Final Act. 5–6. Rather, the Examiner relies on DeLaRama as
disclosing a component for insertion into a catheter including, inter alia, a
cylindrical body with a central lumen. Id. at 5; see also Ans. 7–8
(explaining that DeLaRama’s component is capable of being inserted into a
catheter). The Examiner relies on Hyde only for teaching a central lumen
having a peanut shell shape. See Final Act. 5, 7. Thus, Appellant’s
argument against Hyde individually is unpersuasive of error because the
rejection is based on the combined teachings of DeLaRama and Hyde. See
In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981) (“[O]ne cannot show non-
obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here, the
rejections are based on combinations of references.”).
For the above reasons, Appellant does not apprise us of error in the
Examiner’s determination that the subject matter of claim 12 would have
been obvious. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 12, and of
Appeal 2019-005540
Application 14/283,818

5
claims 13–20 falling therewith, as being unpatentable over DeLaRama and
Hyde.
Rejection II – Obviousness based on DeLaRama, Hyde,
and Konstorum
In contesting the rejection of claim 21, Appellant relies on the
arguments presented for the independent claims. See Appeal Br. 9–10. For
the reasons discussed above, Appellant’s arguments fail to apprise us of
error in the rejection of the independent claims, and, likewise, fail to apprise
us of error in the rejection of claim 21. Accordingly, we sustain the
rejection of claim 21 as unpatentable over DeLaRama, Hyde, and
Konstorum.
CONCLUSION
In summary,
Claim(s)
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References Affirmed Reversed
12–20 103(a) DeLaRama, Hyde, 12–20
21 103(a) DeLaRama, Hyde,
Konstorum
21
Overall Outcome 12–21
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED