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 528 (CCPA 1969). This case stands for the principle that a nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but
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 (CCPA 1967). This case stands for two principles. First, broken lines may not be used to represent an immaterial or unimportant part of a claimed
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. 511 (1871). Gorham is the first design patent case decided by the United States Supreme Court. It established two major principles. First, a design patent
Top 50 Design Patent Cases #1 – International Seaway Trading Corporation v. Walgreens Corp. The number one cited case in design patent prosecutions is International Seaway Trading Corporation v. Walgreens Corp., 589 F.3d 1233 (Fed. Cir. 2009). This case stands for the principle that the ordinary observer test is the
Top 50 Design Patent Cases # 3 Ex Parte Quayle The number 3 most cited case in design patent prosecutions is Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74 (1935). This should not be surprising since the case is cited on the USPTO’s Office Action Summary form. But ignoring the form, Ex
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
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
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
1. Do drawing figures contain broken lines? Then a broken line statement should be included. 2. Do drawing figures not contain broken lines? Then a broken line statement should not be included. 3. Does the broken line statement (BLS) expressly identify what is represented by each type of
Common Rejections In General 1. Improperly including a broken line statement when no broken lines exist in the drawing figures. If the drawing figures have no broken lines, then a broken line statement should not be included. This sometime happens when drawing figures containing broken lines are cancelled during