3 Optimal Design Examinations Based on Evaluations by
Applicants
For the purpose of preparing basic data for promoting efforts to maintain and improve the quality ofdesign examinations and for considering developing the relevant quality management arrangements, I
conducted (1) a survey on overseas design examination quality management, (2) a domestic trial
questionnaire survey, (3) an interview survey, and (4) an expert panel’s discussions, focusing on external
evaluations (evaluations of design examinations by applicants/agents).
There was a 54.6% response collection rate for the domestic trial questionnaire survey. About 90% of
respondents viewed examiners’ overall procedures in the past year as appropriate. About 85% saw noticesof reasons for refusal of design registration applications as appropriate. In free description columns,
respondents provided many specific opinions or information on appropriate and inappropriate examinations.
Based on the trial survey results, I tested methods for evaluations of design examinations by applicants andthe like, and considered optimal design examinations based on the evaluation results.

Ⅰ Introduction

this study focused on external evaluations(evaluationsof design examinations
byapplicants/agents). I surveyed and analyzed
practical problems and user needs regarding
present design examinations, to prepare basic
data for considering how design examinations andtheir quality management should be, from theviewpoint of outside design system users.
Specifically, I conducted the following threesurveys. Based on findings from the surveys, I
analyzed optimal design examinations, and issues
with quality management methods. Finally, an
expert committee considered these matters.
- Survey on overseas design examination
quality management policies- Evaluations of design examinations by
applicantsetc.
(adomestic
trial
questionnaire survey)- Domestic interview survey

In the report in March 2008 on targets that
the Japan Patent Office should achieve in fiscal
2008, the Ministry of Economy, Trade andIndustry called for promoting efforts to maintainand improve the quality of design examinations,and for developing quality management
arrangements.
As for patent examinations, the Quality
Management Office, created in April 2007, hastaken leadership in conducting ex-post objective
measurement and analysis of examination results.
It developed arrangements to have themeasurement and analysis findings reflected inactions for maintaining and improving the qualityof examinations. As a precondition for quality
management, a survey was conducted in fiscal
2007 on quality control methods, based on
evaluations by applicants.
In order to maintain and improve the qualityof design examinations, the JPO has so far tried toaccelerate examinations, and increase thetransparency of the process for developing design
examination standards, to share understanding
with design system users and secure thetransparency and fairness of examinations. Since
fiscal 2008, the JPO Design Division has
conducted the quality management for design
examinations, and considered testing specificquality management methods. Not only internal
evaluations
through
ex-postcheckson
examination results, but also external evaluations
by applicants and the like are important for
objective analysis of examination results.
Toward the future development of quality
management methods for design examinations,

Ⅱ Overseas Design Examination
Quality Management
Among foreign countries that examine
substantive requirements regarding design
registration applications as Japan does, the UnitedStates and South Korea have taken leadership in
studying design examination quality evaluations.
Regarding the United States and South Korea, a
study on patent examination quality management
was conducted as given in a report on the“Quality Management System that Takes into
Consideration Evaluations by Patent Applicants
and the Like” (Institute of Intellectual Property,
March 2008). Based on the report, this study
conducted a questionnaire and other surveys
focusing on design examination quality● 1 ●IIP Bulletin 2010

evaluations, covering
authorities and agents.
1

intellectual

property

biotechnology), (5) patents and utility models (forelectrics and electronics) and (6) patents andutilitymodels(for
information
andcommunications). The same questions are used
for all of them.
Although the survey results are not reflected
directly in examinations, the KIPO uses theresults for improving the examination system,and to enhance customers’ satisfaction with theexamination section and their overall satisfaction.
Questioned on the customer satisfaction
survey, some patent application agents in South
Korea favorably evaluated the KIPO as listening
to and reflecting customer opinions. But someothers said they had doubts about the reflection ofsurvey results in KIPO operations. Some agents
said questions in the survey, though appropriate,should be somewhat more technical.

USA

The United States Patent and Trademark
Office implements quality assurance policies
through the review and improvement of
examinations, to manage the quality of design andother patent examinations. The USPTO hascreated the Office of Patent Quality Assurance,that manages and coordinates examination
reviews independently from the examination
division. The examination reviews can be divided
into two categories – End-check Reviews, andIn-process Reviews.
Since 2006, the USPTO has also
implemented the Customer Panel Quality Survey,
where applicants and the like evaluate design andother patent examinations. The survey covers
domestic applications in all technology categories.
The same questionnaires are used for designs andother patents. The questionnaire survey takes
place every quarter, covering some 1,000
representatives selected among customers filingsix or more patent applications in 12 months.
Survey results are not made in public.
Questioned on the Customer Panel Quality
Survey, U.S. patent application agents said thatsurvey results should be published, and thatquestions on design patents should be separated
from those for other patents. They also said that agreater emphasis should be placed on questions
about the examination quality.
2

Ⅲ Design Examination Evaluations
by Applicants (domestic trial
questionnaire survey)
In order to collect basic data for considering
methods for examination evaluations by outside
design system users, and for optimal design
examinations for the Japan Patent Office’s
examination quality management, I conducted a
trial questionnaire survey of domestic design
registration applicants and their agents. The
survey covered a total of about 1,000 samples
among domestic applicants/agents who filed
seven or more design registration applications infiscal 2008. I sent and collected questionnaires ondesign system users’ evaluations of examinations
for about 3,300 design registration applications,chosen among those on which final decisions
were made in fiscal 2008, in addition toquestionnaires for finding problems with its trial
efforts.
All survey recipients were given fourquestionnaires – Questionnaire A (respondent
information), Questionnaire B (evaluation ofquality of overall examination procedures),
Questionnaire C (evaluation of quality of
examinations for specific design registration
applications), and Questionnaire D (opinions on
the method for collection of design system users’
evaluations). Hereinafter, these questionnaire
categories are indicated.
Within the survey period of about four weeks,
I received responses from 540 out of 989 survey
recipients. This response collection rate of 54.6%
is higher than for usual questionnaire surveys.

South Korea

The Korean Intellectual Property Office(KIPO) created an examination evaluation
division in August 2000, to implement theexamination
evaluation
system,covering
examinations of patent, utility model, trademark
and design registration applications. Evaluations
are divided into three categories – evaluations byexamination evaluators, those by peer teamleaders, and those by examination team leaders.
As a survey of evaluations by applicants andthe like, the KIPO has also awarded contracts tooutside researchers to conduct a biannual
customer satisfaction telephone survey of 1,000
domestic customers, chosen on a random
sampling basis since 2003. The survey covers (1)trademarks, (2) designs, (3) patents and utility
models (for machinery, metals and construction),(4) patents and utility models (for chemistry and● 2 ●IIP Bulletin 2010

1

Satisfaction with design examinations(Questionnaire B)

4

About 90% of the respondents evaluatedoverall procedures of design application
examiners over the past one year as appropriate.
In free description columns, 151 appropriate and
136 inappropriate cases were specified.
The appropriate cases included three
regarding the prior design search, 19 regarding
the swiftness of examinations, 34 regarding
written notices of reasons for refusal of
applications, 13 regarding responses to opinions
and refusal of applications, and 40 regarding
examiners’ responses.
The inappropriate cases included four
regarding the prior design search, seven
regarding the swiftness of examinations, 26
regarding written notices of reasons for refusal of
applications, six regarding responses to opinions
and refusal of applications, and four regarding
examiners’ responses.

About 75% of the respondents evaluateddescriptions of decisions of refusal as “sufficiently
understandable” or “rather understandable,”
indicating these descriptions have been generally
viewed as appropriate. Both applicants and agentstended to give lower ratings for descriptions ofdecisions of refusal than the about 85% positive
evaluations for descriptions of reasons for refusal.
This tendency was stronger for agents. The mostfrequently cited reason for respondents’ failure tounderstand descriptions of decisions of refusal,
was that “explanations about the failure toeliminate reasons for designs’ lack of novelty or
creativity were insufficient.” Complaints written
in free description columns were related to
examiners’ decisions, insufficient explanations
about grounds for refusal, and the absence of
responses to written opinions.
52

Key points of design examinations(Questionnaire B)

6

with

examiners

Comparison of JPO and foreign
examination procedures (Questionnaires
B and C)

While noting that it was difficult to compare
examination procedures of the JPO and foreign
patent offices because of differences inprocedures, systems and standards for decisions,
respondents said that examinations in Japan were
swifter than in foreign countries, and that theprior design search and examinations in Japan
were more accurate and less variable. Responses
on comparison of domestic vs. overseas (U.S. andSouth Korean) applications on a case-by-casebasis tended to endorse these views.

Descriptions in written notices ofreasons for refusal of applications(Questionnaire C)

About 85% of the respondents evaluateddescriptions in written notices of reasons forrefusalofapplicationsas“sufficiently
understandable” or “rather understandable,”
indicating these notices have been generally
viewed as appropriate. The most frequently cited
reason for respondents’ failure to understanddescriptions in written notices of reasons forrefusal of applications was that “explanations
about reasons for designs’ lack of novelty or
creativity were insufficient.”

7

Method for collection of evaluations by
applicants and the like (Questionnaire D)

More than 80% of the respondents said theywould cooperate in future surveys on evaluationsof design examination quality, indicating that this● 3 ●IIP Bulletin 2010

Communications(Questionnaire C)

More than 90% of the respondents evaluatedinterviews and telephone/fax communications(exchange of opinions, presentation of draft
amendments, etc.) with examiners as appropriate,
indicating such communications are generally
viewed as useful.

I found that applicants/agents paid attention
to “the appropriateness of the prior design search(Japan Design Gazette, prior designs, catalogues,
magazines and other publications),” “examiners’
persistent decisions,” “the appropriateness ofdescriptions in written notices of reasons forrefusal of applications,” “the appropriateness of
responses to interview, telephone and othercommunications” and “understanding of goods
and product categories related to specificdesigns”, in evaluating for their satisfaction
with examination procedures.
3

Descriptions of decisions of refusal(Questionnaire C)kind of survey is viewed as important.
Oftherespondents,
17.1%
said
Questionnaires A to C included questions thatwere difficult to answer or understand. In freedescription columns, some respondents said that
Questionnaire B included questions on overseas
conditions that were difficult to answer due todifferences in procedures, standards and systems.
Other opinions said that questions and response
standards in the questionnaire were vague, andthat it was burdensome to select cases that wereconsidered problematic. Regarding Questionnaire
C, respondents said that the identification of
specific cases was burdensome, that design
registration applications that had been accepted
immediately should not be subject to a survey
because it is difficult to respond to questions onthese applications, and that questions andresponse standards were vague.
Regarding questionnaire forms, many
respondents said they prefer multiple-choicequestions that are easier to answer. At the sametime, many said questions subject tofree-description answers should be adopted inaddition to multiple-choice questions.
On points that should be considered incollecting evaluations by applicants and the likeand on requests regarding the survey method, themost frequently cited opinion was thatconsideration should be given to the handling andrecording of specific information. Other opinionsin free description columns were related toconsideration for respondents’ burdens, theselection of specific cases, disclosure andfeedback of survey results, etc.

related and partial design categories for separate
analyses, an opinion among respondents was thatquestionnaires should be restructured to enable
separate analyses. Another opinion said themethod for a survey on evaluations by applicants
and the like should be improved as one of thequality management techniques.
As for the questionnaire survey form, many
respondents said they would like to electronicallywrite answers instead of handwriting.
Regarding question forms, respondents said
that multiple-choice questions are good for
reducing respondents’ burdens, but there areproblems which multiple-choice alone cannot
cover, so free description columns are necessary
for problems and improvement suggestions. The
opinion was raised that it would be easier to writein one free description column for all questions,rather than for each question.
As for the frequency of the regular survey,
responses ranged from every six months toseveral year intervals. None of the respondents
complained that the four-week period between
the distribution and collection of questionnaires
was too short. When setting the survey period,
however, we may have to take respondents’convenience into account. For example, we may
have to exclude any long-vacation season fromthe survey period.
Many respondents called for making survey
results public, and some expressed the desire to
consult others’ opinions. Some said that after thesurvey, they would like to see how survey results
would be analyzed, and its effects.
On Questionnaire C that ask questions on
specific examination cases designated for thesurvey, many respondents said cases including
some intermediate actions like the notification ofreasons for refusal should be designated, because
no response could be made about cases in which
design registration applications were accepted
immediately. Some said that the designation of
specific cases could eliminate respondents’burden of selecting cases, and make it easier for
respondents to make responses. But many said
respondents should be allowed to select specificcases in addition to designated ones. As for an
appropriate number of cases for the designation,
many said 10 would be excessive. Requested
numbers ranged from five to less than 10.

Ⅳ Domestic Interview Survey
I conducted an interview survey covering a
total of 20 parties -- 11 applicants and nine agents-- chosen among applicants and agents which
received the domestic questionnaire survey.
1

Method for trial survey on design
examination evaluations by applicants

Most of respondents in the interview survey
agreed that design examination evaluations by
applicants/agents and their relevant opinions
should be collected regularly through surveys likethe trial questionnaire survey.
About half of respondents in the interview
survey evaluated the quality and volume ofquestionnaires as appropriate. As questionnaires
were not structured for dividing applications into2

Design examination procedures

On the notification of reasons for refusal, thetrial description of reasons was welcomed as● 4 ●IIP Bulletin 2010

giving specific reasons for refusal. But some
respondents said the description should be
expanded further.
For decisions of refusal, some respondents
said they want responses to written opinions, aswell as the grounds for the decisions.
The prior design search was evaluated as
appropriate. As key points for evaluating the prior
design search, respondents cited the appropriate
scope of search, the appropriateness of specificliteratures for search, and other points related tothe quality of search, in addition to the type ofliteratures for search.
Responding
applicants
viewedtheirinterview, telephone, fax and other directcommunications with examiners as important andeffective, and called for more diverse and flexible
communications.
Examinations were generally evaluated as
sufficiently fast. But some respondents noted that
if design registrations were too fast, it could affectrelated or overseas design registration
applications. An opinion among respondents said
some cases were characterized by fast firstactions and slow second actions.
3

confirming evaluations of the examination quality,and for measuring and improving the effects ofquality management means. These have been
incorporated into quality management at foreign
patent offices. The JPO is urged to develop somemethod to efficiently and sufficiently collectevaluationsofdesignexaminations
byapplicants/agents.
2

Other requests

Ⅴ Optimal Design Examinations Basedon (Trial) Evaluations by Applicants,
and Quality Management Problems
and Analysis
Significance and roles of (trial)
evaluations by applicants/agents inquality management

In the interview survey, many respondents
said evaluations by applicants and the like would
be useful, as they could contribute to maintaining
and improving the quality of design examinations
and become a communications means. An opinion
among the respondents said the method for asurvey on evaluations by applicants and the likeshould be improved as one of quality managementmeans.
“External
evaluations”
ofdesignexaminations are significant for directly● 5 ●IIP Bulletin 2010

by

In the trial questionnaire survey, I sent
questionnaires to applicants/agents and collected
responses. There was a high response collection
rate (about 55%), and many respondents said theywould also cooperate in this kind of survey in the
future. In the interview survey as well, many
respondents said it is desirable to conduct thiskind of survey. Therefore, I suspect that thenecessity of this kind of survey has beenrecognized as important.
Given the above response collection rate, I
suspect the questionnaire survey method as
generally appropriate. In the interview survey,
however, many respondents said they would liketo electronically write answers instead ofhandwriting.
Regarding questionnaire forms, many
respondents said they prefer multiple-choicequestions that are easier to answer. At the sametime, many said questions subject tofree-description answers should be adopted inaddition to multiple-choice questions.
Regarding questionnaire forms, many
respondents said they prefer multiple-choicequestions that are easier to answer. At the sametime, some said there are problems that cannot betaken up by multiple-choice questions alone, so
questions subject to free-description answers
should also be provided. Therefore, it may bedesirable to combine multiple choice (scale)questions with free description questions. A
single free description column at the end of aquestionnaire may be desirable for reducing theburden on respondents and making it easier for
surveyors to analyze responses.
The trial survey results indicated no specificcharacteristics for the applicants or agents assurvey recipients. When quality managementmeans are improved, it may be appropriate to
make questionnaires similar for applicants andagents as much as possible, to facilitatecomparison of responses.
One problem is whether overall examination

As for design examination information
measures that were not positively taken up forthis survey, many respondents called forproviding and expanding information about theprior design search, examination decisions, andthe utilization of design rights.

1

Trial method for evaluations
applicants and agents

procedures or case-by-case ones should be
subjected to a survey. Some said questions about
respondents’ satisfaction with overall examination
procedures in each survey would make little
sense. But some others said “if questions about
overallexamination
procedures
allowedrespondents to point out problems that could not
be taken up for specific cases, they would be
useful for looking into such problems or issues.
Questions about specific cases would allow
respondents to identify real problems withspecific cases in line with details of examinations.
It would be appropriate to take these points into
account and decide whether to target overall
examinations or specific cases, according to thesurvey objectives.
Survey targets were selected from among
design system users who filed a certain numberof design registration applications, and received
final decisions on specific applications within acertain period of time. In Questionnaire C, somespecific cases were designated for the survey on arandom sampling basis. Although no major
problems emerged with this trial survey, we may
have to take into account respondents’safekeeping of relevant documents and the
freshness of their memories, in considering how
to reduce the burden on respondents and improve
the accuracy of surveys.
This trial survey covered a total of about
4,700 specific design registration applications, anda total of about 1,000 applicants/agents. Actual
responses covered about 2,800 specificapplications by 540 applicants/agents.
This trial survey featured a high response
collection rate (54.8% for applicants, 54.2% foragents). The rate’s high level could be attributed
to the first trial survey on design examinations. If
more surveys are conducted on design
examinations, some means may have to bedevised to maintain response collection rates athigh levels.
As for the survey frequency, the interview
survey found that many respondents viewed aregular survey as appropriate, despite someresulting burdens on responding applicants/agents.
None of the respondents in the interview survey
said the four-week period between the
distribution and collection of questionnaires forthis trial questionnaire survey was too short.
When setting the survey period, however, we may
have to take respondents’ convenience into
account.
Requests by respondents in the survey
included the disclosure and feedback of survey

results. In the interview survey, most ofinterviewees said that survey results should be
published as a matter of course.
A dominant opinion in the survey and in thesurvey results consideration panel was that theappropriate handling of information should betaken into account.
3

Details of questionnaires
domestic survey

for

trial

In response to Questionnaire B’s Question 1
on overall design examinations, a high percent(about 90%) of respondents evaluated “recent
procedures of examiners” as “appropriate” or“rather appropriate.”
In response to Questionnaire C’s Question
1-(2) on descriptions of reasons for refusal of
specific applications, a high percent (about 85%)of respondents evaluated such descriptions as“sufficiently
understandable”
or“ratherunderstandable.” In responding to Questionnaire
C’s Question 2, both applicants and agents gave alower rating to decisions of refusal, than tonotices of reasons for refusal. Agents’ rating ofsuch decisions was remarkably lower. More than
90% of respondents welcomed their interview,
telephone and fax communications withexaminers in Question 5 of Questionnaire C, andindications of amendments in Question 6 of
Questionnaire C.
Impressions of specific cases where
examinations were viewed as inappropriate may
remain strong in the memory of applicants andagents, affecting their evaluations of overall
examinations (as found in the interview survey).
We will have to consider this point whencomparing evaluations of overall and case-specificexaminations.
Future issues include analyses on how
evaluations of case-specific examinations would
affect those of overall examinations, what factors
exist behind the difference between theseevaluations, and what survey methods would be
effective for minimizing these effects or factors.
For example, we should refrain from subjecting all
evaluations uniformly to statistical processing.
Evaluations of case-specific examinations shouldbe left out of statistical processing, and used forlooking into problems and issues andsupplementing other survey results. Evaluations
may thus be used for different purposes.
Furthermore, it may be effective to useinterviews to supplement questionnaire surveys,
when surveyors want to directly confirm● 6 ●IIP Bulletin 2010

applicants’ opinions indicated in questionnaires or
obtain more details of such opinions.
As for contents of questionnaires, it may bedesirable to reduce questions in Questionnaire A(respondent information) as much as possible, andleave only minimum requirements for analysis, inconsideration of the burden on respondents.
On Questionnaire B (overall design
examinations), many respondents in the interview
survey complained that the questionnaire failed toaddress examination procedure differences
betweendesignregistrations
application
categories, including the partial design category.
In the future, we may have to consider modifying
the questionnaire to allow responses to beanalyzed on a category-by-category basis.
Question 1 (design examiners’ recent procedures)in the questionnaire asked respondents todescribe reasons for their evaluations –“appropriate” and “inappropriate.” Reasons
regarding “descriptions in notices (includingreferences) of reasons for refusal and decisions ofrefusal” were most frequently cited. The freedescription column for this question was usefulfor asking questions on specific reasons and casesin the interview survey. On Question 2(comparison of domestic and overseas design
examinations), respondents in the interview
survey complained that the question was difficult
to answer because of differences between
domestic and overseas design systems. On
Question 3 (key points for measuring satisfaction
with examination procedures), I found thatapplicants/agents paid attention to “theappropriateness of the prior design search,”“examiners’
persistentdecisions,”“theappropriateness of descriptions in written noticesof reasons for refusal of applications,” “theappropriateness of responses to interview,
telephone and other communications”, and“understanding of goods and product categories
related to specific designs.” Therefore, it may be
useful to place emphasis on these points inanalyzing a questionnaire survey and conducting
an interview survey.
As for Questionnaire C (specific cases),
many respondents apparently desired thatquestions on specific cases designated by thequestioner would be combined with those on
cases that could be selected by respondents. On
the appropriate number of cases for thedesignation, many respondents in the interview
survey said 10 would be excessive. Requested
numbers ranged from five to less than 10. On theselection of specific cases subject to questions, adominant opinion among respondents was that “itwould be desirable to designate cases among
those in which a notice of reasons for refusal was
made at least once.” An opinion about questions
said that questions specialized for design
registration application categories or methods
would not be necessary, and that free description
columns should made be available for specificcategories or methods if necessary.
4(1) Accuracy of examiners’ decisions
In the interview survey, an opinion among
respondents said that the scope of similarity, thecreativity and other key points should be decided
on according to each category of goods or
products, and that information about the scope ofsimilarity and the creativity for each category of
goods or products was insufficient for clarificationof decisions. One reason for such opinion was that
respondents did not know design right maps,
registered picture samples and other references
made available on the JPO website, nor how to
use such information. Therefore, the JPO should
expand the range of information including specificcases. It should not only provide information, butalso publicize how to use information andpublicize information in easy-to-understandforms.
(i)

Accurate
understandingof
product
categories and designs
In the questionnaire survey, some
respondents selected a view that whether
examiners understand details of design
registration applications would be important formeasuring the satisfaction of applicants and thelike with examinations. In free descriptions andthe interview survey, these respondents said thatapplicants’ communications with examiners wouldbeimportantforgaining
examiners’
understanding of applications, and that theywanted examiners to understand not only shapesof designs but also uses of relevant goods,
conditions of relevant goods categories, andbackgrounds of designs. Interview, telephone, fax
and other communications with examiners would
be useful for examiners’ understanding of thesedetails, they said. Some respondents proposed thepresentation of relevant goods, explanations about
products, factory visits, and other measures topromote examiners’ understanding of design● 7 ●IIP Bulletin 2010

Optimal design examinations based ontrial evaluations by applicants and thelikeshapes and product backgrounds.

noted that although the speed of first actions had
no problems and were satisfactory, second actions
were slow for some cases. Therefore, examiners
may have to take care to reduce such variability.
(Senior Reseacher: Kumiko IMAI)(ii) Appropriate prior design search
A finding from the questionnaire survey isthat applicants viewed an appropriate prior design
search as important, and interpreted cited prior
designs as roughly appropriate. According to freedescriptions in the questionnaire survey andresponses in the interview survey, some
respondents noted that they were uncertain about
whether the prior design search was done
accurately, because they had to read reference
literatures cited in official gazettes to check up
the scope of the prior design search. Regardingthese points, the JPO may have to reduce
applicants’ burdens and worries, and clarify
relevant procedures.
(iii) Low variance in decisions
An opinion given in the questionnaire survey
said low variance in decisions meant that there
were no gaps between decisions after
examinations, nor between examiners. In theinterview survey, respondents urged the JPO to
implement the feedback of decisions and smoothtakeovers upon replacement of examiners, asinternal control measures.
(2) Smoothcommunications
withapplicants/agentsOn a trial basis, examiners describe specificreasons for decisions in written notices of reasons
for refusal as a basic communications means
between applicants/agents and examiners. In thequestionnaire survey, 84.9% of respondents
viewed descriptions of reasons in such notices as“sufficiently
understandable”
or“ratherunderstandable.” Many respondents welcomed
and favored the trial descriptions. Examiners’
interview,
telephone,
fax
and
other
communications with applicants/agents and theirindications of amendments were generally
welcomed as useful. In order to inform applicantsof examination-based decisions accurately andpromote smooth communications, examiners may
have to make more efforts to enhancedescriptions in written notices of reasons forrefusal, and flexibly respond to various contacts.
(3) Other- Speed of examinations
In the interview survey, respondents wereroughly satisfied with the speed of examinations,which has been a demand of design registration
applicants. Nevertheless, some respondents● 8 ●IIP Bulletin 2010