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 Christopher J. Stankus COVID-19 has brought numerous changes to the legal industry’s approach to working remotely. Some changes have been ordered by the courts, while others have been instituted by practitioners. Some of these [Read More…]
WHIPgroup secured a favorable decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), reversing all obviousness rejections of claims directed to a rotating electrical machine. In particular, WHIPgroup successfully argued that the prior art motor [Read More…]
On Thursday, May 21, 2020, the Southern District Court of California dismissed all claims brought by Hylete, Inc. against WHIPgroup clients Rob Orlando and Hybrid Athletics because, according to the Court, all Hylete’s claims were [Read More…]