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 part of the claimed design or of a specified embodiment thereof.” If the drawing figures contain broken lines and a broken line statement is not
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 a broken line statement is understandable. The MPEP expressly recommended use of the phrase without any reference to environment or other qualifier up until August
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