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. What is the app fee and the transmittal forms like for design patents?
  2. Lack of Ornamentality
  3. Are tubers allowed to be patented?
  4. What are the two steps for the prima facie obviousness test for patents?
  5. What are the elements of a design patent?
  1. a No
  2. b Just like utility apps
  3. c The 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.
  4. d 1) App fee & transmittal forms
    2) ADS
    3) The specification (including the single claim)
    4) Drawings
  5. e 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.

5 Multiple choice questions

  1. 1) Views (design draft)
    2) Broken lines
    3) Photos & Color Drawings (normally drawings are B&W)
  2. Remember, the ornament must be original, simply copying another design and reproducing it (simulation) is not original, no patent.
  3. 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.
  4. "New, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture" including:

    1) A design for an ornament, impression, print, or picture applied to or embodied in an article of manufacture (like the design on the outside)
    2) a design for the shape or configuration of the article (like the shape of the case, how the overall product appears)
    3) A combination of the first 2 categories.
  5. They still have to meet the above requirement to be part of an 'article of manufacture' instead of just being abstract drawings:
    1) 2D computer icons are considered as surface ornamentation, so as long as this icon is part of another item of manufacture (like appearing on a monitor with a product) it is just another type of ornamentation. Example: Icons on an iPhone screen can get design patents.
    2) As long as there is an embodiment the icon may be patented.

5 True/False questions

  1. Nonobviousness (35 USC 103)They still have to meet the above requirement to be part of an 'article of manufacture' instead of just being abstract drawings:
    1) 2D computer icons are considered as surface ornamentation, so as long as this icon is part of another item of manufacture (like appearing on a monitor with a product) it is just another type of ornamentation. Example: Icons on an iPhone screen can get design patents.
    2) As long as there is an embodiment the icon may be patented.

          

  2. ADS for design patentJust 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.)

          

  3. Novelty: 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. What types of plants can be patented?Only asexually produced plants (or sexually or asexually produced plants)

          

  5. 35 USC 112 Considerations1) 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.

          

Create Set