USD1,054,889 – Issue Date: December 24, 2024 Rejection: The examiner rejected the design claim under 35 U.S.C. 112, A and B paragraphs, as the claimed invention was not described in such full, clear, concise and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to make and use the
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 of the EU Patent No. 006629317-0005 (“Therabody”) and Chinese Patent No. 306055743 (“Zheng”). The rejection was based on similarities between the “Therabody” reference and the
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 35 U.S.C. § 103. Three differences are that obviousness-type double patenting (1) compares claimed subject matter to claims in an earlier patent or patent application
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 528 (CCPA 1969). This case stands for the principle that a nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but
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 (CCPA 1967). This case stands for two principles. First, broken lines may not be used to represent an immaterial or unimportant part of a claimed