Now that the expedited examination procedure for design patents has been suspended, what can practitioners do to speed up prosecution? We know from pendency statistics that applications receiving rejections, objections, restrictions, and notices to file missing parts have significantly longer times from filing to issue. The practical solution is to
Are hybrid 2D/3D design disclosures sufficiently definite under 35 U.S.C. § 112? The answer is of growing importance because it directly impacts indefinite depth rejections, which remain the most common form of § 112 rejection in design patent applications. Decisions from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) appear to
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
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