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 Hao Zhang and Patrick D. Duplessis U.S. inventors seeking to protect their IP rights worldwide often file foreign patent applications in markets where they conduct business or where they are likely to find infringers [Read More…]
The Federal Circuit recently provided insight into the complicated issue of § 101 subject matter eligibility for method of treatment claims. In Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc v West-Ward Pharmaceuticals, 887 F.3d. 1117 (Fed. Cir. 2018), a [Read More…]
On July 17, the WHIPgroup Tech Entrepreneur Meetup will return to the important topic of Artificial Intelligence. We will hear from the co-founders of Dreyev (pronounced “drive”), an interactive driving safety system that combines AI with [Read More…]