DESIGN PATENT BLOG POSTS
Obviousness-Type Double Patenting – App. No. 29/866,647 – Golf Club Head – December 24, 2024
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
Top 50 Design Patent Case #5 In re Thorington
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
Top 50 Design Patent Case #4 In re Blum
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
The New York Times – Gorham v. White
The New York Times – Gorham v. White The following article was published in The New York Times on November 30, 1872 after the United
Top 50 Design Patent Cases #2 Gorham v. White
Top 50 Design Patent Cases #2 – Gorham v. White The number two cited case in design patent prosecutions is Gorham v. White 81 U.S.
Top 50 Design Patent Cases #1 International Seaway Trading Corporation v. Walgreens Corp.
Top 50 Design Patent Cases #1 – International Seaway Trading Corporation v. Walgreens Corp. The number one cited case in design patent prosecutions is International
Ex Parte Quayle – Third Most Cited Case
Ex Parte Quayle – Third Most Cited Case The third most cited case in design patent prosecutions is Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74 (1935).
Teaching Away Update – Roulette Game
Teaching Away Update – Roulette Game In App. No. 29/842,266 (Display Screen with Graphical User Interface of a Roulette Game with a Contrasting Sector Highlighting
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
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
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