Recently, our Office received Examination Decision No. 16262 on the Request for Invalidation for Patent No. ZL200520122330.4 titled Electric Motor Overload Protector issued by the Patent Reexamination Board of the State Intellectual Property Office(PRB). In the decision the PRB determined that, if a technical solution defined in a claim has distinguishing features as compared with the closest prior art reference, while there is no suggestion given in the prior art for applying said distinguishing features to the reference for solving the technical problem existing therewith, and while the technical solution defined in the claim can produce an advantageous technical effect, the claim does involve an inventive step. Thus, a further success has been made by our office representing our client in an invalidation case.

During the prosecution of the present case, the attorney team from our office made a specific study on the procedure and substantive issues in the case, and kept timely and effective communication with the client so that the client not only was satisfied with the examination result of the case, but also rested assured during the prosecution of the case as the overall case proceeded as expected.