NAME

Question types


Start with


Question limit

of 20 available terms

Advertisement Upgrade to remove ads
Print test

5 Written questions

5 Matching questions

  1. The Claim in Design Patents
  2. The specification
  3. Plants
  4. 35 USC 112 Considerations
  5. Novelty
  1. a 1) There should be a Preamble & Title (this takes the place of the abstract). This just includes the title of the design & brief description.
    2) The Description. The description usually is brief since most of the actual information about the design & ornamentation is actually contained in the drawing. As long as the descriptions clearly & accurately describe aspects of the drawings they are permitted (no particular format required). However, remember 35 U.S.C. 112 ΒΆ 2: If the descriptions are not clear the examiner can object and require that the descriptions be rewritten.
    3) Just 1 claim allowed
  2. b 1) Under paragraph 1: if the drawings do not properly disclose the design or if the designer of ordinary skill will not be able to reproduce the design from the information given in the spec/drawings then it will be rejected for not being properly described or enabled.
    2) Under paragraph 2: Definiteness is still important in the claims. Simply saying "or similar article" , "or the like" will not be definite enough when describing the design. However, that broadening language could be OK if it is instead used in describing the types of environment in which the design would be used (like: "used in a kitchen or the like") since that is just background info and not about the design itself.
  3. c : It is possible to get a utility patent (35 U.S.C. 101) on a plant instead of the plant patent (35 U.S.C. 161) so plant patents are not exclusive to utility patents (although you have to choose one or the other).
  4. d The factual inquiry is to determine if the new design is actually novel, and has not been anticipated in all respects by prior art. As long as the "average observer" would not see the prior art as anticipating the new design in every element, it is novel. (This is 35 U.S.C. 102 reasoning!) Remember, the prior art does not have to be analogous, it could come from any source.
  5. e The (single) claim is of the form: "The ornamental design for (the article that embodies the design or the article that the design is applied to) as shown
    2) As a corollary, if the examiner sees anything looking distinct/separate in the design app, a restriction to elect 1 claim will be mandatory (remember than in utility apps the restriction is not 100% mandatory if the examiner does not see an undue burden in the examination, but here it is)
    3) Divisional continuations are still available for restrictions in design apps.

5 Multiple choice questions

  1. Just like utility apps
  2. Only asexually produced plants (or sexually or asexually produced plants)
  3. Just like a utility app(giving basic info on the app, correspondence addresses, names of applicants, specifying if there is a preliminary amendment, declaring SES, etc.)
  4. The term for plant patents is the same as for utility patents: 20 years from the effective filing date.
  5. 1) Description
    2) Drawings
    3) Specimens

5 True/False questions

  1. Are tubers allowed to be patented?Only asexually produced plants (or sexually or asexually produced plants)

          

  2. What are the elements of the drawings for design patent?1) App fee & transmittal forms
    2) ADS
    3) The specification (including the single claim)
    4) Drawings

          

  3. What are the two steps for the prima facie obviousness test for patents?1) Appropriate if the designer of ordinary skill would modify a prior art reference to remove some features to arrive at the new design (same thing as removing parts of an invention that are not functional, no patent for obviousness).
    2) As usual, the applicant may rebut a prima facie case for obviousness.

          

  4. What are the elements of a design patent?1) App fee & transmittal forms
    2) ADS
    3) The specification (including the single claim)
    4) Drawings

          

  5. Lack of OrnamentalityThe ornamentation has to actually have been made for the purpose of being decorative, it can't just be a byproduct of the functional design. Example: I make a pulley system as part of an invention that might look nice. The pulleys are part of the function of the invention, and since they are not ornamental I cannot get a design patent on them.

          

Create Set