DESIGN PATENT BLOG POSTS
Top 50 Design Patent Case #5 In re Thorington
Top 50 Design Patent Case #5 In re Thorington The number five most cited case in design patent prosecutions is In re Thorington, 418 F.2d
Top 50 Design Patent Case #4 In re Blum
Top 50 Design Patent Cases #4 In re Blum The number four cited case in design patent prosecutions is In re Blum, 374 F.2d 904
The New York Times – Gorham v. White
The New York Times – Gorham v. White The following article was published in The New York Times on November 30, 1872 after the United
Top 50 Design Patent Cases #2 Gorham v. White
Top 50 Design Patent Cases #2 – Gorham v. White The number two cited case in design patent prosecutions is Gorham v. White 81 U.S.
Top 50 Design Patent Cases #1 International Seaway Trading Corporation v. Walgreens Corp.
Top 50 Design Patent Cases #1 – International Seaway Trading Corporation v. Walgreens Corp. The number one cited case in design patent prosecutions is International
Top 50 Design Patent Cases #3 Ex Parte Quayle
Top 50 Design Patent Cases # 3 Ex Parte Quayle The number 3 most cited case in design patent prosecutions is Ex Parte Quayle, 25
Teaching Away Update – Roulette Game
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
Secondary Considerations in Design Patent Law
Secondary Considerations in Design Patent Law Introduction One of the four factual inquires within the Graham obviousness analysis for design patents is assessment of secondary
Understanding Design Patent Obviousness Principles following LKQ v GM
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
Analogous and Non-Analogous Art in Design Patent Law
The analogous art requirement determines the scope of prior art that can be considered when assessing whether a claimed design is obvious or anticipated. It exists because a person of ordinary skill “could not possibly be aware of every teaching in every art.” In re Wood, 599 F.2d 1032, 1036 (CCPA 1979).
ProSearch Update – Sec. 112 Indefinite Depth Rejections and In re Maatita
ProSearch Update – Sec. 112 Indefinite Depth Rejections and In re Maatita Summary: Four Applications mentioned In re Maatita. In the first, the applicant overcame
Exploring the Depths: Overcoming Section 112 Rejections in Design Patent Prosecution
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