DESIGN PATENT BLOG POSTS
Secondary Considerations in Design Patent Law
Secondary Considerations in Design Patent Law Introduction One of the four factual inquires within the Graham obviousness analysis for design patents is assessment of secondary
Understanding Design Patent Obviousness Principles following LKQ v GM
Understanding Design Patent Obviousness Principles following LKQ v GM Preliminary Draft for Comment By: Robert G. Oake Introduction Criticizing the legal framework for determining obviousness
Analogous and Non-Analogous Art in Design Patent Law
The analogous art requirement determines the scope of prior art that can be considered when assessing whether a claimed design is obvious or anticipated. It exists because a person of ordinary skill “could not possibly be aware of every teaching in every art.” In re Wood, 599 F.2d 1032, 1036 (CCPA 1979).
ProSearch Update – Sec. 112 Indefinite Depth Rejections and In re Maatita
ProSearch Update – Sec. 112 Indefinite Depth Rejections and In re Maatita Summary: Four Applications mentioned In re Maatita. In the first, the applicant overcame
Exploring the Depths: Overcoming Section 112 Rejections in Design Patent Prosecution
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
Design Patents and Section 112
Working with design patents can be enjoyable because they consist mainly of a drawing or set of drawings. There is some written description to be sure, but absent are the typical pages and pages of text usually found in utility patents. However, attractive drawings can be misleading. Despite the apparent simplicity
Why Design Patent Pro (DPP) ProSearch?
Why Design Patent Pro (DPP) ProSearch? DPP ProSearch is intended to fill a gap in the resources available to design patent practitioners by providing a
How to Avoid Objections and Rejections to Broken Line Statements in Design Patent Applications Part 7 (Checklist)
1. Do drawing figures contain broken lines? Then a broken line statement should be included. 2. Do drawing figures not contain broken lines? Then
How to Avoid Objections and Rejections to Broken Line Statements in Design Patent Applications – Part 6 (Additional Common Rejections)
Common Rejections In General 1. Improperly including a broken line statement when no broken lines exist in the drawing figures. If the drawing figures
How to Avoid Objections and Rejections to Broken Line Statements in Design Patent Applications – Part 5 (Important General Principles)
1. Necessity of a Broken Line Statement MPEP § 1503.02 (III) entitled “Broken Lines” states “[u]nclaimed subject matter must be described as forming no
How to Avoid Objections and Rejections to Broken Line Statements in Design Patent Applications – Part 4 (Two Major Areas of Confusion)
Use of the Phrase “are for illustrative purposes only” The confusion over whether and how to use the phrase “are for illustration purposes only” in
How to Avoid Objections and Rejections to Broken Line Statements in Design Patent Applications – Part 3 (History, Development, and Current State)
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