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 covered by a design apps (35 USC 171)?
  2. Nonobviousness (35 USC 103)
  3. 35 USC 112 Considerations
  4. Plants
  5. What is the app fee and the transmittal forms like for design patents?
  1. a : 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).
  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 "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.
  4. d The analogous art for designs is not the field for the functional part of the invention, it is the field for the actual types of design involved. Example: Say there is a repeated decorative pattern being patented, the fact that the product it is decorating is an outdoor table is not the field to look for analogous art. Instead, look at the field of products where similar patterns would be used in the ornamental sense.
  5. e Just like utility apps

5 Multiple choice questions

  1. 1) Views (design draft)
    2) Broken lines
    3) Photos & Color Drawings (normally drawings are B&W)
  2. 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.
  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) 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

5 True/False questions

  1. What are the two steps for the prima facie obviousness test for patents?1) Views (design draft)
    2) Broken lines
    3) Photos & Color Drawings (normally drawings are B&W)

          

  2. What are the 8 major differences between design apps and utility apps?1) App fee & transmittal forms
    2) ADS
    3) The specification (including the single claim)
    4) Drawings

          

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

          

  4. Lack of OrnamentalityThe 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. NoveltyThe 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.