Groklaw - Digging for Truth

	When you want to know more...

Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines

ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

You won't find me on Facebook

Donate

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.

What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments

Sponsors

Hosting:

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster

Only "ONE Claim" allowed in design patent | 484 comments | Create New Account

Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.

Only "ONE Claim" allowed in design patent

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 31 2012 @ 11:54 AM EDT

I don't know about the '677 patent. I only looked at USD504889. Please provide
the whole patent number for the one you are referring to.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Only "ONE Claim" allowed in design patent - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 31 2012 @ 01:17 PM EDT

Only "ONE Claim" allowed in design patent

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 31 2012 @ 01:14 PM EDT

"Just to be clear, the Apple design patent D'677 indicates that their
design is valid for novelty items and toys as well. It is a well known fact that
chalk board slates have existed with rounded rectangles before."

Having now reviewed the '677 patent (thank you PJ), I do not understand the
assertion above. The '677 device is clearly limited to an electronic device
(so, not none electronic novelty items or toys).

Moreover, almost the entire thing is shown with dashed lines. Accordingly, as
best as I can tell, that patent covers only a rectangular black thing with a
whole in it, and then only as a component of an electronic device.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )