WHIPgroup attorneys successfully appealed rejections for a patent application directed to an endoscope having an improved joining seam on the edge of a window to prevent penetration of moisture into the interior of the endoscope. In its Appeal briefs, WHIPgroup argued that there would not have been any motivation to make an endoscopic component of a first reference out of a particular material, based on another reference’s teaching of a completely different component made of that material. The Board agreed with WHIPgroup’s arguments, stating “the Examiner has not explained sufficiently how Harley’s teaching regarding suitable materials for an optical system spacer and endoscope insertion tube would have motivated a skilled artisan to make Hibbard’s stainless steel interior tube … of the same Invar™ material as Harley’s spacers.” Having found the Examiner failed to provide evidence or persuasive explanation, the Board reversed all rejections without oral argument.
By Wesley W. Whitmyer, Jr. Not every person is a match for every job. Patents are expensive and complicated legal documents. No less authority than the US Supreme Court noted long ago that “[t]he specification [Read More…]
By William L Birks III In a patent infringement suit, plaintiffs often seek damages for lost sales of infringing products. While this is the most obvious source of recovery, opportunities for larger damage rewards may [Read More…]
WHIPgroup recently made appearances on behalf of client WhitServe LLC in two IPRs brought by Dropbox Inc. The IPRs were filed in response to WhitServe’s patent infringement lawsuit against Dropbox Inc. in the District of Delaware. WhitServe’s U.S. Patent [Read More…]