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

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