|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 31 2012 @ 11:52 AM EDT |
"@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."
They are not superfluous. As you rightly state "ate the scope of the
design." That is very important. The validity of any patent is determined
by its scope. Is it so broad as to read on the prior art or is it narrow enough
to cover only that which is new and not obvious.
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.
No one (well at least not I) is arguing with that.
"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've covered that several times and been scolded by RAS for repeating myself. I
wont do it again. The significance is that it defines the scope of the patent
and scope is extremely important.
"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. "
No, that is not the only thing that remains. What remains is all of that as a
design for an electronic device.
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?
The foreman was not making an argument. He was telling a story to a reporter
who then edited his comments. You are picking on him for things that he did not
say. So he didn't mention the figures in an edited form of the interview. So
what. Somethings go without saying.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
