What is the written description requirement for design patents?
The written description requirement for design patents is essentially the same as for utility patents. The key points are: The drawings provide the description of the invention for design patents The disclosure must reasonably convey to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed design as of the filing date…
Read MoreWhat is the main difference between design patent applications and utility patent applications regarding claims?
The main difference is that a design patent application may only have a single claim, while a utility patent application can contain multiple claims. As stated in the MPEP: “Unlike a utility patent application, which can contain plural claims directed to plural inventions, a design patent application may only have a single claim.” This limitation…
Read MoreWhat are the requirements for design patent protection of computer-generated icons?
According to MPEP 1504.01(a), computer-generated icons can be protected by design patents if they meet specific requirements: The icon must be embodied in a computer screen, monitor, other display panel, or portion thereof. The icon must be more than a mere picture on a screen. The claimed design must be shown in solid lines, not…
Read MoreCan design patent applications claim priority to provisional applications?
No, design patent applications cannot claim priority to provisional applications. This is explicitly stated in MPEP 1504.10: “Design applications may not claim the benefit of a provisional application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e).“ This restriction is also supported by 35 U.S.C. 172, which states that “The right of priority provided for by section 119(e) shall not…
Read MoreCan a design patent protect the process or functionality of a computer-generated icon?
No, a design patent cannot protect the process or functionality of a computer-generated icon. According to MPEP 1504.01(a), design patents for computer-generated icons are limited to the ornamental appearance of the icon: “The following types of computer-generated icons are not considered to be embodied in an article of manufacture: … icons generated by computer programs…
Read MoreWhat is the process for restoring the right of priority in a design patent application?
The right of priority in a design patent application can be restored under certain conditions if the application is filed within two months of the expiration of the six-month priority period. According to MPEP 1504.10: “Under certain conditions, a right of priority to a foreign application may be restored if the U.S. design application is…
Read MoreWhat is the priority period for design patent applications under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d)?
The priority period for design patent applications under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) is six months. This is specified in 35 U.S.C. 172, which states: “The right of priority provided for by subsections (a) through (d) of section 119 shall be six months in the case of designs.“ This means that to obtain the benefit of an…
Read MoreHow is the scope of prior art determined for design patents?
The scope of prior art for design patents extends to all “analogous arts.” The MPEP provides specific guidance for evaluating analogous arts in the design context: “In re Glavas, 230 F.2d 447, 450 109 USPQ 50, 52 (CCPA 1956) provides specific guidance for evaluating analogous arts in the design context, which should be used to…
Read MoreWho decides on petitions and requests related to design patent applications?
Petitions and requests related to design patent applications are primarily decided by the Director of Technology Center 2900 at the USPTO. This authority is specifically outlined in MPEP § 1002.02(c)(3): “In addition to the items delegated to all Technology Center Directors under MPEP § 1002.02(c), authority to decide the following requests filed in design applications…
Read MoreWhat is the test for nonobviousness in design patent applications?
The test for nonobviousness in design patent applications is based on the Graham v. John Deere Co. factual inquiries, as stated in the MPEP: “The basic factual inquiries guiding the evaluation of obviousness, as outlined by the Supreme Court in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), are applicable to…
Read More