|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 30 2012 @ 03:29 AM EDT |
Words in a design patent do not matter, the images do.
Every
single design patent will have minor variations of the
words "we claim
ornamental design of XYZ". So, what is your
point? In case of utility patent,
"wording" of the Claims is
the most important thing. In case of design patents,
the
"drawings" are the most important thing.
Example:
D'889
Claims
We claim the ornamental design for an electronic device,
substantially as
shown and described.
D'346
Claims
The ornamental design for the pen-based computer, as shown
and
described.
D'505
Claims
The ornamental design for a portable computer, as shown.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 30 2012 @ 11:51 AM EDT |
FIG 1. is a top perspective view of an electronic device in accordance
with the present design
FIG 2. is a bottom perspective view
thereof
FIG 3. is a top view thereof
...
FIG 8. is a
lower side view thereof
FIG 9. is an exemplary diagram of the use of
the electronic device thereof the broken lines being shown for illustrative
purposes only and form no part of the design
You are 100% technically
correct. Words do come with the design patent.
However, in my humble
opinion you are incorrect with regards ignoring the key point the other poster
is making. The point - in my humble understanding - being:
Most - if not
all - of the words are superfluous.
As you can see from the few statements
I quoted - which represent the context of all the statements in the description
- they are simply used to denote what surface you are looking at. Just about
the entire description area can easily be replaced by attaching a label to each
image beyond the label that's there:
Fig 1 - Front
Fig 2 -
Back
Fig 3 - Front Landscape
Fig 4 - Back Landscape
The
final - one would hope - is for the purpose of clearly indicating they don't
claim the "design of a human profile". But it should be obvious such should not
allowed.... sadly, the fact it must be stated shows part of the insanity of the
IP System.
Sorry - in the clear example you yourself provided, I agree
with the other poster:
The details of importance are clearly in the
image(s), not the words.
Whether or not the Foreman erred in the way the
other poster suggested - only the Foreman can truly say, if he's willing to be
totally honest.
And yes - from what I interpret from his statements as
admission that he ignored a number of the Jury Instructions, I question his
honesty.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
