|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 31 2012 @ 01:56 AM EDT |
@RAS: This is the original poster who started the thread.
You have understood
the point I was trying to make in a
crystal clear manner.
@Anon:
Please do not take "no statements" literally. Of
course there are words. But,
as RAS points out, they are
superfluous. The only importance of the "Claims"
sentence is
to state the scope of the design. In this particular case,
there
was absolutely no confusion that the class of devices
was the same. We are not
dealing with design for a toy-slate
v/s electronic tablet.
I would
like to quote from USPTO guidelines for design
patents. USPTO Design
Patent guide
Elements of a Design Patent Application
The
elements of a design patent application should include
the following:
(1)
Preamble, stating name of the applicant, title of the
design, and a brief
description of the nature and intended
use of the article in which the design
is embodied;
(2) Cross-reference to related applications (unless included
in the application data sheet).
(3) Statement regarding federally
sponsored research or
development.
(4) Description of the figure(s) of the
drawing;
(5) Feature description;
(6) A single claim;
(7)
Drawings or photographs;
(8) Executed oath or
declaration.
The Figure Descriptions
The Figure
Descriptions indicate what each view of the
drawings represents, i.e., front
elevation, top plan,
perspective view, etc.
Any description of the design
in the specification, other
than a brief description of the drawing, is
generally not
necessary since, as a general rule, the drawing is the
design's
best description. However, while not required, a
special description is not
prohibited.
In addition to the figure descriptions, the following types
of
statements are permissible in the specification:
1. A description of the
appearance of portions of the
claimed design which are not illustrated in the
drawing
disclosure (i.e., “the right side elevational view is a
mirror image
of the left side”).
2. Description disclaiming portions of the article not
shown, that form no part of the claimed design.
3.Statement indicating
that any broken line illustration of
environmental structure in the drawing is
not part of the
design sought to be patented.
4.Description denoting the
nature and environmental use of
the claimed design, if not included in the
preamble.
A Single Claim
A design patent
application may only include a single claim.
The claim defines the design which
applicant wishes to
patent, in terms of the article in which it is embodied or
applied. The claim must be in formal terms to “The
ornamental design for (the
article which embodies the design
or to which it is applied) as shown.” The
description of the
article in the claim should be consistent in terminology
with the title of the invention.
When there is a properly included
special description of the
design in the specification, or a proper showing of
modified
forms of the design, or other descriptive matter has been
included in
the specification, the words “and described”
should be added to the claim
following the term “shown.” The
claim should then read “The ornamental design
for (the
article which embodies the design or to which it is applied)
as shown
and described.”
These only prove that in case of design patents,
the most
prominent emphasis is on the drawings. The Claims and the
description
statements are not even permitted to state
details that are not depicted in the
drawings. Also, the
protection is only to what is depicted in the drawings.
This
is the complete opposite of Claims in a Utility patent,
where the
protection is granted to individual claims.
With the knowledge that
dotted lines in the D'677 patent are
to be ignored according to the statements
in Apple's patent
and also the guidelines on USPTO, if we look at the D'677
patent. What is the significance of "statements" in the
patent?
I
would also like to point out here, that after ignoring the
dotted lines in
D'677, the only thing that remains in the
D'677 patent is a rounded rectangle
with some bezels on the
sides, larger bezels on top and bottom and a slit on
top for
earphone. Home button (the distinguishing part of Apple
iDevices) is
apparently not protected, which is surprising.
I would imagine that if someone
wants to protect a design,
e.g., BMW kidney shaped grill, BMW would try for a
design
patent on the grill, not the other way round by trying
getting a design
patent on car with 4 wheels and ignore the
grill..
My basic problem
with the Foreman's argument is that he
compares iPhone with the alleged Samsung
devices keeping
them side-by-side, and he referred to statements in the
Design
patents and not the images in the design patent. When
he says "he referred to
the statements in the patent", what
was he looking for? Did he want to be sure
if they were
looking at the top view and not the bottom view?
-PR[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
