Author: Robert G. Oake, Jr.

To fully understand the current confusion that exists in broken line practice and how best to avoid objections and rejections, it is helpful to consider the development of design patent prosecution and how case law influenced revisions to Chapter 1500 of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP). These revisions

Many rejections to broken line statements are common and typically result from language choice that fails to satisfy the two basic requirements of precisely identifying what is represented by the broken lines and defining their relationship to the claimed design. For an explanation of the two basic requirements, click here.

The theory underlying broken line practice in design patent prosecution is relatively simple. Broken lines typically show portions of an article that form no part of the claimed design, unclaimed environment to the article, or boundaries of the claimed design. Despite these relatively simple concepts, numerous objections and rejections continue

Updated March 5, 2024. Applicants responding to rejections and objections can use the Design Patent Pro (DPP) ProSearch database to search for and cite prior design patent application documents and arguments where applicants successfully overcame similar rejections and objections. Should examiners consider such prior examples and arguments? What is their

The prosecution history of USD1,012,864 (Portion of A Plastic Deep Electrical Junction Box) serves as a a reminder of when portions of a solid line can be converted to broken lines and when they cannot under In re Owens, 710 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2013). In App, 29/711,198, Figs. 5