Steven Christian et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 29, 2020

12597840 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 29, 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.
12/597,840 04/13/2010 Steven C. Christian 0B-0537USO3/82410.0500 3145
55962 7590 04/29/2020
Wiley
Patent Administration
1776 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
EXAMINER
CARDINAL, ERIN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3794
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/29/2020 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 STEVEN C. CHRISTIAN, HARRY A. PURYEAR,
JAMES V. KAUPHUSMAN, and WILLIAM M. SUTTON
____________

Appeal 2019-005981
Application 12/597,840
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, LEE L. STEPINA, and
ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.

STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE.
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision in the Final Office Action (dated May 17, 2018, hereinafter “Final
Act.”) rejecting claims 17, 19–21, 24, 26, 27, 30, 31, 33, 37, and 38 under 35

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. St. Jude Medical, Atrial Fibrillation Division, Inc. is
identified as the real party in interest in Appellant’s Appeal Brief (filed Oct.
15, 2018, hereinafter “Appeal Br.”). Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-005981
Application 12/597,840

2

U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Stewart.2,3 We have jurisdiction
over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

SUMMARY OF DECISION
We AFFIRM.

INVENTION
Appellant’s invention is directed to “devices and methods to anchor
an electrode within a vessel for use in diagnostic and/or therapeutic
procedures.” Spec. para. 9.
Claims 17 and 21 are independent. Claim 17 is illustrative of the
claimed invention and reads as follows:
17. A catheter for anchoring an electrode in a lumen, the
catheter comprising:
a handle;
an elongate catheter body configured for introduction
over a guidewire and including a central axis and a flexible
anchor segment, wherein the elongate catheter body comprises
a proximal end and a distal end, further wherein the proximal
end of the elongate catheter body is operably connected to
the handle;
the flexible anchor segment configured to be movable
between a deployed configuration, wherein the flexible anchor
segment is deviated from the central axis of the elongate
catheter body into a uniform corkscrew shape to engage a tissue
surface of the lumen such that relative movement between
the elongate catheter body and the lumen is inhibited without
completely occluding the lumen, and an undeployed
configuration, wherein the flexible anchor segment is generally

2 Claims 1–16, 18, 22, 23, 25, 28, 29, 32, and 39 are canceled and claims
34–36 are withdrawn. After-Final Amendment 2–5 (filed Oct. 15, 2018).
3 Stewart et al., US 2002/0111618 A1, published Aug. 15, 2002.
Appeal 2019-005981
Application 12/597,840

3

collinear with the central axis of the elongate catheter body to
introduce the catheter into the lumen, wherein a straightening
device deforms the flexible anchor segment into the undeployed
configuration; and
an ablation electrode on the elongate catheter body
within the flexible anchor segment,
wherein the flexible anchor segment is biased into the
deployed configuration.

ANALYSIS4
Appellant does not present arguments for the patentability of claims
19–21, 24, 26, 27, 30, 31, 33, 37, and 38 apart from claim 17. See Appeal
Br. 9–11. Therefore, in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2014),
we select claim 1 as the representative claim to decide the appeal of the
rejection of these claims, with claims 19–21, 24, 26, 27, 30, 31, 33, 37, and
38 standing or falling with claim 17.
The Examiner finds that Stewart discloses a catheter including, inter
alia, a handle 24, an elongate body 22 having a lumen that can be introduced
over a guidewire, a flexible anchor segment 34, a straightening device
(guidewire or stylet) to deform flexible anchor segment 34, and a plurality of
ablation electrodes 26. Final Act. 4–5 (citing Stewart, paras. 78, 111, 132,
137, Figs. 3A, 3B, 15A, 26, 28, 30–32). The Examiner further finds that in
an undeployed configuration flexible anchor segment 34 is aligned with a
catheter axis and in a deployed configuration it expands into a uniform
corkscrew shape inhibiting movement between body 22 and a vessel lumen

4 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claims 19, 21, 24, 30, 31, and
33 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite. See
Examiner’s Answer 3–4 (filed Mar. 4, 2019, hereinafter “Ans.”).
Appeal 2019-005981
Application 12/597,840

4

wall. Id. (citing Stewart, para. 78, 137, Figs. 3A, 3B, 8, 10, 11, 13A, 15A,
15C, 16A, 16B, 22, 26, 28, 30–32).
Appellant first argues that Stewart’s loop 34 is “not a corkscrew shape
as recited in the instant claims” because “Stewart discloses that the loop 34
is ‘preferably substantially closed.’” Appeal Br. 10 (citing Stewart, paras.
76–78).
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument because as the
Examiner correctly finds, Stewart specifically discloses that “loop 34 may
. . . include a plurality of revolutions to define a spiral or coil.” Advisory
Action 2 (citing Stewart, para. 75 (emphasis added), 86) (dated Aug. 11,
2018). Appellant does not adequately explain why a person of ordinary skill
in the art would not reasonably consider a spiral shape to be a “corkscrew
shape,” as recited in independent claim 17.
Appellant further argues that Stewart’s loop 34 or coil 70 does not
constitute an “‘anchor’ that ‘inhibits relative movement between the catheter
body and a vessel lumen wall.’” Appeal Br. 10 (citing Stewart, paras. 76–
78, 85, 88, Figs. 3A, 3B) (emphasis omitted). According to Appellant, in
contrast to claim 17, which recites “that the anchor, which is configured for
anchoring in a lumen, contains an ablation electrode,” Stewart’s “ablation
electrode is not found on the portion that enters the pulmonary vein.” Id. at
10–11 (citing Stewart, paras. 179, 195, 197, 204, 205, Fig. 28) (emphasis
added). Furthermore, Appellant notes that Stewart specifically “discloses an
anchor 96” and an “‘anchoring device . . . such as balloon 136 . . . or the
wire cage . . . 166.’” Id. at 11 (citing Stewart, paras. 90, 179, Figs. 6, 7)
(emphasis added).
Appeal 2019-005981
Application 12/597,840

5

We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments because as the
Examiner correctly states, claim 17 does not require “ablating within the
vessel or otherwise inserting the ablation electrode (or portion of the anchor
segment that includes the ablation electrode) into the vessel.” Ans. 6.
Limitations not appearing in the claims cannot be relied upon for
patentability. In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982). In this case,
independent claim 17 requires a “flexible anchor segment” that includes “an
ablation electrode” and is “configured to . . . engage a tissue surface of the
lumen such that relative movement between the elongate catheter body and
the lumen is inhibited.” Appeal Br. 13 (Claims App.).
In particular, Stewart discloses distal portion 720 (flexible anchor
system) of catheter 700 having ablation section 722 with electrodes 736a–e
(ablation electrode) positioned thereon and proximal section 728. Stewart,
paras. 193, 195, Figs. 27, 28. Stewart further discloses distal portion 720,
via proximal section 728, contacting pulmonary vein PV wall to seat distal
portion 720 within the pulmonary vein PV wall, and, via ablation section
722, contacting and compressing distal portion 720 against wall W. Id.,
para. 195, Fig. 28.
Hence, Stewart discloses a “flexible anchor segment,” as called for by
claim 17, because distal portion 720, which, includes ablation section 722,
contacts, i.e., “engages,” the pulmonary vein PV wall, i.e., “tissue surface of
the lumen.” See Ans. 6 (“[I]n Stewart the entire deployed distal end [720] of
the structure is the flexible anchor segment.”). Furthermore, as proximal
distal portion 720 sits within the pulmonary vein PV, via proximal section
728, and compresses against wall W, via ablation section 722, the Examiner
is on solid ground to determine that relative movement is inhibited between
Appeal 2019-005981
Application 12/597,840

6

the pulmonary vein PV wall and catheter 700. Appellant provides neither
evidence nor persuasive technical reasoning to show otherwise.
Lastly, we note that even though Stewart discloses anchor 96 and
anchoring devices 136, 166, the Examiner is correct that “[t]he disclosure of
additional anchor embodiments” do not preclude Stewart’s distal portion 720
from constituting a “flexible anchor segment,” as called for by claim 17. In
particular, Stewart discloses that anchor 96 is “for facilitating a more radical
displacement of the distal portion” and devices 136, 166 constitute
“additional” anchoring devices. See Stewart, paras. 90, 179. Hence,
Stewart’s anchor 96 and anchoring devices 136, 166 are disclosed as being
in addition to any existing anchoring device, such as, distal portion 720 of
catheter 700, as correctly determined by the Examiner.
In conclusion, for the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) of independent claim 17 as anticipated by Stewart.
Claims 19–21, 24, 26, 27, 30, 31, 33, 37, and 38 fall with claim 17.

CONCLUSION

Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
17, 19–21,
24, 26, 27,
30, 31, 33,
37, 38
102(b) Stewart 17, 19–21,
24, 26, 27,
30, 31, 33,
37, 38

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED