How 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 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 MoreWhat is the significance of Derwent World Patents Index in patent searches?
What is the significance of Derwent World Patents Index in patent searches? The Derwent World Patents Index is a valuable resource for patent searches, as mentioned in MPEP 901.06(d): “The DERWENT World Patents Index (WPI), and the Derwent World Patents Index (DWPI) since 2009, contain English abstracts of patent documents from 41 countries and two…
Read MoreWhat are “Defensive Publications” in patent law?
What are “Defensive Publications” in patent law? Defensive Publications are technical disclosures published to prevent others from patenting the disclosed invention. The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) 901.06(d) states: “Defensive Publications (the O.G. Defensive Publication and Statutory Invention Registration (SIR)) are technical disclosures of subject matter that can be used as prior art as…
Read MoreWhat are defensive publications in patent examination?
Defensive publications, as mentioned in MPEP 901.06(d), are documents published to establish prior art without pursuing patent protection. The MPEP states: “Defensive Publications, which are patent applications voluntarily published without examination, are included in the search files.” These publications serve as a defensive strategy to prevent others from patenting similar inventions. They are considered prior…
Read MoreWhat replaced the Defensive Publication Program in patent law?
According to MPEP 1513, the Defensive Publication Program was replaced by the Statutory Invention Registration (SIR) Program. Specifically, it states: “Effective May 8, 1985, the Statutory Invention Registration (SIR), 35 U.S.C. 157, and 37 CFR 1.293 – 1.297 replaced the former Defensive Publication Program.“ The SIR Program provided inventors with an alternative way to establish…
Read MoreWhat is a “cross-reference art collection” in patent searching?
A “cross-reference art collection” in patent searching refers to a grouping of patent documents that are relevant to a particular subject matter but do not fit neatly into a single classification. The MPEP 904.02(a) states: “Cross-reference art collections, if any, associated with the class or subclass are also included in the search (MPEP § 903.07).”…
Read MoreHow do CPC scheme warnings affect patent searches?
CPC scheme warnings can significantly impact patent searches by alerting researchers to potential classification discrepancies and changes. The MPEP 905.01(a)(3) indicates that warnings can provide information on: “…deviations from IPC or incomplete classification… IPC groups not included within CPC and the CPC group which covers the relevant subject matter… deletion or transferring of CPC groups…
Read MoreWhat is the general rule regarding the confidentiality of pending U.S. patent applications?
Generally, pending U.S. patent applications that have not been published are preserved in confidence and are not available as references. This rule is outlined in MPEP 901.03, which states: “Except as provided in 37 CFR 1.11(b), 37 CFR 1.14(a)(1)(v) and 37 CFR 1.14(a)(1)(vi), pending U.S. applications which have not been published are generally preserved in…
Read MoreWhat is the relationship between commercial success and nexus in patent law?
In patent law, commercial success can be used as evidence of non-obviousness, but it must have a nexus to the claimed invention. The MPEP states, ‘If commercial success is due to an element in the prior art, no nexus exists.’ ‘If the feature that creates the commercial success was known in the prior art, the…
Read More