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
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