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 Robert D. Keeler There are multiple strategies for addressing Final Office Actions at the USPTO. WHIPgroup already explained why examiners like RCEs (and why you shouldn’t). One alternative to an RCE – an Appeal [Read More…]
Owning Your Brand: Essential Steps For Successful Trademark Protection Walter B. Welsh, Esq., Member 9/20, 10:15 am in Sheraton Grand, Stamford, CT Starting a company? Launching a Product? Re-branding? Securing the right to use and [Read More…]
Protecting Your Business With Strategic Patenting Walter B. Welsh, Esq., Member 9/20, 2:30 pm in Sheraton Grand, Stamford, CT Are you innovating? Launching a new software product? Improving a supplier’s product? Obtaining economically valuable patent [Read More…]