The first step is entering a search term in the search bar. For example, if you receive a rejection based on In re Owens, you may want to research how other design patent applicants have handled similar rejections. To search, type “In re Owens” in the search bar, leave the issue date empty, and click Search or return.
Teaching Away Update – Roulette Game In App. No. 29/842,266 (Display Screen with Graphical User Interface of a Roulette Game with a Contrasting Sector Highlighting
Understanding Design Patent Obviousness Principles following LKQ v GM Preliminary Draft for Comment By: Robert G. Oake Introduction Criticizing the legal framework for determining obviousness
Failure to disclose the depth of certain design features is one of the most frequent rejections made during design patent prosecution. Rejections typically arise because applicants inadvertently overlook
USD1,053,376 – Issue Date: December 3, 2024 Rejection: The examiner rejected the design claim under Section 103 as being obvious in light of a combination
USD1,055,187 – Issue Date: December 24, 2024 Key Point: The analysis for obviousness-type double patenting is similar but not identical to an obviousness analysis under
Robert is a Registered Patent Attorney and is Triple Board Certified in Patent Litigation, Civil Trial Law, and Civil Practice Advocacy by the National Board of Trial Advocacy. He holds two LL.M (Master of Law) Degrees, including an LL.M in Patent and Intellectual Property Law (with highest honors) from the George Washington University Law School in Washington, D.C.
Robert served as lead trial and appellate counsel for Egyptian Goddess, Inc. in what has been called the most important design patent case in the last one hundred years. (Egyptian Goddess v. Swisa). He has tried to verdict as lead counsel cases involving design patents, utility patents, and trademarks, and has argued eleven cases before the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals including an en banc case involving a design patent.
Robert currently serves as one of four members on the Patent Litigation Specialty Program Commission of the National Board of Trial Advocacy.