WHIPgroup attorneys obtain favorable decision using the Post-Prosecution Pilot (P3) Program for a case directed to a dc supply unit for a power provision unit. After receiving a final rejection, WHIPgroup presented arguments to a P3 Panel asserting that the prior art failed to disclose the specific configuration of an electrical component and the direction of current flow through the component to provide a fault-isolating protection system. The P3 Panel agreed with WHIPgroup’s arguments and found that the amended claims overcome the prior art rejections.
WHIPgroup attorneys successfully appealed an obviousness rejection for a patent application directed to a flexible medical instrument. WHIPgroup argued that one skilled in the art would not appreciate the prior art’s “pinion and rack gears” [Read More…]
By Benjamin N. Luehrs and Hao Zhang Inter Partes Review (IPR) is an effective procedure for invalidating a competitor’s patent whereby a petitioner cites other patents and printed publications (i.e., “prior art”) to argue that [Read More…]
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…]