PTAB

IPR2018-00268

ACCLaRent Inc v. AlbrITTon IV Ford

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Guide Catheter Systems and Methods
  • Brief Description: The ’412 patent is directed to methods for using a surgical guide catheter apparatus. The technology’s purported novelty is a handle formed to allow a user to control the guide catheter’s position with the fingers of one hand while simultaneously manipulating a working device (e.g., a guidewire) with the thumb and index finger of the same hand.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 8 and 11-13 are obvious over Ressemann in view of Goldfarb.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Ressemann (Application # 2007/0250105) and Goldfarb (Patent 8,747,389).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Ressemann, a reference not cited during prosecution, teaches nearly every element of the method in independent claim 8. Ressemann discloses a single-handed method for treating sinusitis where a physician uses the fingers of one hand to grasp and position a handle coupled to a guide catheter, while simultaneously using the thumb of the same hand to manipulate a working device (a wire guide) extending through the handle. Petitioner asserted the only element missing from Ressemann is the use of suction. Goldfarb, which relates to similar sinusitis treatment devices, remedies this deficiency by explicitly teaching the use of a thumb/finger hole on a handle to control suction. For dependent claims, the combination of a handle opening (from Ressemann) and a suction hole (from Goldfarb) provides the claimed first and second openings.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner contended a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine the references to improve Ressemann's device. Since maintaining a clear, dry surgical field is critical in sinus surgery, adding suction was a well-known and necessary improvement. Goldfarb provided a known technique for doing so. A POSITA would have been motivated to integrate Goldfarb's suction control into Ressemann's handle—rather than using a separate suction tool—because both references emphasize the importance of single-handed operation, which frees the operator's other hand for an endoscope or other instruments.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success, as incorporating a suction port into a catheter handle was a simple, common, and predictable design modification in the field of surgical instruments.

Ground 2: Claims 8-13 are obvious over Makower in view of Jones.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Makower (Application # 2006/0063973) and Jones (Patent 4,915,691).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Makower teaches a single-handed surgical tool for sinus procedures with a pistol-grip handle structurally similar to that of the ’412 patent. This tool is used to control a guide catheter while simultaneously manipulating a working device (e.g., advancing a balloon catheter by pushing an inflation port with the thumb). Petitioner argued this meets the core manipulation limitation of claim 8. While Makower suggests its devices may incorporate suction, it does not detail the control mechanism. Jones, a reference not cited during prosecution, discloses a medical aspirator with a pistol-grip handle and a "thumb control hole" specifically designed for one-handed operation to vary the amount of suction.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate the specific, ergonomic suction control method of Jones into the single-handed device of Makower. Makower itself suggests adding suction, and Jones provides a well-established method for doing so on a similarly shaped handle. The combination would predictably improve Makower’s functionality by providing a convenient way to clear fluids, a routine need in such procedures, without requiring a second hand.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination would have yielded predictable results. Adding Jones's standard thumb-port suction control to Makower's pistol-grip device was a straightforward application of a known technique to a similar device to achieve a known benefit (integrated suction).

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "formed to allow": Petitioner argued this term should be construed broadly as "capable of," consistent with its use as functional, permissive language throughout the patent. Petitioner asserted the patent discloses no specific structure required to perform the function, only that the handle is capable of being used in the claimed manner. This broad construction allows prior art handles not explicitly designed for, but capable of, the claimed manipulation to be invalidating.
  • "manipulating the working device with a thumb and index finger": For the purposes of the IPR, Petitioner adopted the Patent Owner's interpretation from related district court litigation. This interpretation construes the phrase to include using one digit (e.g., the index finger) to apply oppositional or stabilizing force against the handle while the other digit (e.g., the thumb) moves the working device. This construction is critical to Petitioner's argument, as it allows prior art like Ressemann and Makower—where a user's hand stabilizes the device while the thumb actuates a component—to meet the claim limitation.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 8-13 of the ’412 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.