Author: Robert G. Oake, Jr.

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

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