The invention is directed to a trocar assembly for minimally invasive surgery. The application received a final office action rejecting all claims for being anticipated by three different references. WHIPgroup filed an Appeal and argued that the cited art operates in different ways to achieve different results, and that Applicant’s unique structure was not found in the prior art. WHIPgroup also argued that the Examiner had a made an unreasonably broad claim interpretation that was inconsistent with Applicant’s specification. After oral argument the Board reversed the rejections and allowed the claims.
By Stephen Ball A decision earlier this summer underscores ongoing problems with patent law jurisprudence at the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”). In Yu v Apple, the Federal Circuit invalidated [Read More…]
By Ryan Newell The agriculture industry is undergoing rapid and revolutionary changes. Inventors should take notice. The traditional farming system is threatened by accelerating water shortages and an ever-growing population. To sustain everyone, it must [Read More…]
Jasmine Gratton is completing her LL.M in Intellectual Property and Information Technology Law at Fordham University School of Law. She has an LL.B. from University of Bristol Law School in England, and completed her thesis [Read More…]