Again, this is opposite from PTO utility patent application examination, even though under the very same §103 standard. The “ordinary observer” test for designpatent infringement must also be contrasted with the traditional judicial view of design patent “claims scope” as narrow – see, e.g., cases cited in the article “Functionality and Design Patent Validity and Infringement”, 91 313, May, 2009, by Perry J. But is the scope of design patents now being treated consistently with the black-letter case law that claims in litigation must have the same scope for infringement and validity? That is, prior art is rarely being applied at the examination stage. sustained §103 summary judgment of two design patents in suit is “ordinary observer” test? In contrast to utility patent litigation, in design patent litigation summary judgments for non-infringement are relatively rare, while summary judgments for §103 obviousness are more common.is whether the claimed design would have been obvious to a designer of ordinary skill who designs articles of the type involved.’”) (quoting , 90 F.3d 1570, 1574 (Fed. 1996) (“The central inquiry in analyzing an ornamental design for obviousness is whether the design would have been obvious to ‘a designer of ordinary skill who designs articles of the type involved.’”) ..court may in fact have had the “designer of ordinary skill” standard in mind when it used the term “ordinary observer.” In any event, the court could not rewrite precedent setting forth the designer of ordinary skill standard. Under the first step, a court must both “(1) discern the correct visual impression created by the patented design as a whole; and (2) determine whether there is a single reference that creates ‘basically the same’ visual impression.” overall visual appearance.” Does that seem appropriate for a normal §103 analysis? Is not the designing of costly consumer products intended to be sold by the millions [like smart phones] an “art” in which the §103 “ordinary skill” level of product designers would be expected to be especially high?Utility models and designs are two available categories of patent in China.Utility models are sometimes referred to as ‘small inventions’ because they involve a comparatively lower level of inventive step and are less costly than inventions.Ornamental designs of jewelry, furniture, beverage containers (Fig.
That’s when you need to take the road less traveled–to go unconventional.
You might choose to a common way or go totally out of the league.
And choosing any of the ways can help you accomplish a task.
We at Grey B understand the need to go unconventional to hunt that solid prior art hidden in images, somewhere in the archives of internet waiting to be unearthed.
So no matter how far and wide we have to search, if it exists, we will find it. So why keep it a secret and let others do the guesswork?