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
Introduction In 2024, a full one third of all issued design patents received at least one non-final rejection during prosecution (46,589 issued, 15,425 non-final rejections). The most frequent rejections were for failure to properly disclose depth of certain design elements, drawing inconsistencies, and improper use or description of broken lines.
Understanding Design Patent Obviousness Principles following LKQ v GM By: Robert G. Oake Introduction Criticizing the legal framework for determining obviousness in design patent law is popular sport. After all, it makes for an easy mark. Whether a design is obvious is inherently subjective and attempts at objectively are at
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
This design patent application highlights how the LKQ v. GM en banc decision emphasized the requirement of a record-supported reason for combining references and that the combination of prior art references must achieve the claimed design. The applicant’s success lay not only in identifying specific design differences but also in articulating how