Source: https://www.bitlaw.com/source/mpep/1503_01.html
Timestamp: 2018-05-26 19:50:34
Document Index: 770163524

Matched Legal Cases: ['§1503', '§1503', '§ 1', '§ 1504', '§ 1504', '§ 1504', '§ 1503', '§ 1503', '§ 1503']

MPEP 1503.01: Specification, Jan. 2018 (BitLaw)
MPEP 1503.01
1503: Elements of a Design Patent Application Filed Under 35 U.S.C. chapter 16
Previous: §1503 | Next: §1503.02
1503.01 Specification [R-08.2017]
37 C.F.R. 1.153 Title, description and claim, oath or declaration (for applications filed on or after September 16, 2012).
37 C.F.R. 1.153 (pre-AIA) Title, description and claim, oath or declaration (for applications filed prior to September 16, 2012).
37 C.F.R. 1.154 Arrangement of application elements in a design application.
(6) The inventor's oath or declaration (see § 1.153(b) ).
A preamble, if included, should state the name of the applicant, the title of the design, and a brief description of the nature and intended use of the article in which the design is embodied (37 CFR 1.154 ).
The title of the design identifies the article in which the design is embodied by the name generally known and used by the public and may contribute to defining the scope of the claim. See MPEP § 1504.04, subsection I.A. The title may be directed to the entire article embodying the design while the claimed design shown in full lines in the drawings may be directed to only a portion of the article. However, the title may not be directed to less than the claimed design shown in full lines in the drawings. A title descriptive of the actual article aids the examiner in developing a complete field of search of the prior art and further aids in the proper assignment of new applications to the appropriate class, subclass, and patent examiner, and the proper classification of the patent upon allowance of the application. It also helps the public in understanding the nature and use of the article embodying the design after the patent has been issued. For example, a broad title such as "Adapter Ring" provides little or no information as to the nature and intended use of the article embodying the design. If a broad title is used, the description of the nature and intended use of the design may be incorporated into the preamble. Absent an amendment requesting deletion of the description, it would be printed on any patent that would issue.
Since 37 CFR 1.153 requires that the title must designate the particular article, and since the claim must be in formal terms to the "ornamental design for the article (specifying name) as shown, or as shown and described," the title and claim must correspond. When the article named in the title does not correspond to the article named in the claim, the examiner should object to the inconsistency under 37 CFR 1.153 and require correction.
However, it is emphasized that, under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), the claim defines "the subject matter which the inventor or joint inventor regards as the invention" (emphasis added); (or for applications filed prior to September 16, 2012, under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112 the claim defines "the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention"), that is, the ornamental design to be embodied in or applied to an article. Thus, the examiner should afford the applicant substantial latitude in the language of the title/claim. The examiner should require amendment of the title/claim if the language is clearly misdescriptive, inaccurate, or unclear (i.e., the language would result in a rejection of the claim under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), (or for applications filed prior to September 16, 2012, 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph); see MPEP § 1504.04, subsection II). The use of language such as "or the like" or "or similar article" in the title when directed to the environment of the article embodying the design will not be the basis for a rejection of the claim under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), (or for applications filed prior to September 16, 2012, 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph). However, such language is indefinite when it refers to the area of articles defining the subject matter of the design. An acceptable title would be "door for cabinets, houses, or the like," while the title "door or the like" would be unacceptable and the claim will be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), (or for applications filed prior to September 16, 2012, 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph). Ex parte Pappas, 23 USPQ2d 1636 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992). See also MPEP § 1504.04; subsection II.
Amendments to the title, whether directed to the article in which the design is embodied or its environment, must have antecedent basis in the original disclosure and may not introduce new matter. Ex parte Strijland, 26 USPQ2d 1259 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992). If an amendment to the title is directed to the environment in which the design is used and the amendment would introduce new matter, the examiner should object to the amendment under 35 U.S.C. 132. If an amendment to the title is directed to the article in which the design is embodied and the amendment would introduce new matter, in addition to the objection under 35 U.S.C. 132, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) (or for applications filed prior to September 16, 2012, the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112 ).
(5) A "characteristic features" statement describing a particular feature of the design that is considered by applicant to be a feature of novelty or nonobviousness over the prior art (37 CFR 1.71(c) ).
A "characteristic features" statement describing a particular feature of novelty or nonobviousness in the claimed design may be permissible in the specification. Such a statement should be in terms such as "The characteristic feature of the design resides in [1]," or if combined with one of the Figure descriptions, in terms such as "the characteristic feature of which resides in [2]." While consideration of the claim goes to the total or overall appearance, the use of a "characteristic feature" statement may serve later to limit the claim (McGrady v. Aspenglas Corp., 487 F. Supp. 859, 208 USPQ 242 (S.D.N.Y. 1980)).
2. In bracket 2, insert --should be-- or --have been-.
For [1], the description(s) of Fig(s). [2] [3] amended to read: [4]
3. In bracket 3, insert --should be-- or --have been-.
2. In bracket 1, insert --must be-- or --has been--.
37 C.F.R. 1.153... claim...
(a)... The claim shall be in formal terms to the ornamental design for the article (specifying name) as shown, or as shown and described. More than one claim is neither required nor permitted.
A design patent application may only include a single claim. The single claim should normally 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. See MPEP § 1503.01, subsection I.
When the specification includes a proper descriptive statement of the design (see MPEP § 1503.01, subsection II), or a proper showing of modified forms of the design or other descriptive matter has been included in the specification, the words "and described" must be added to the claim following the term "shown"; i.e., the claim must read "The ornamental design for (the article which embodies the design or to which it is applied) as shown and described."
Full lines in the drawing show the claimed design. Broken lines are used for numerous purposes. Under some circumstances, broken lines are used to illustrate the claimed design (i.e., stitching and fold lines). Broken lines are not permitted for the purpose of identifying portions of the claimed design which are immaterial or unimportant. See In re Blum, 374 F.2d 904, 907, 153 USPQ 177, 180 (CCPA 1967) (there are "no portions of a design which are ‘immaterial’ or ‘not important.’ A design is a unitary thing and all of its portions are material in that they contribute to the appearance which constitutes the design."). See also MPEP § 1503.02, subsection III.
¶ 15.62 Amend Claim "As Shown"
For proper form (37 CFR 1.153 or 37 CFR 1.1025 ), the claim [1] amended to read: "[2] claim: The ornamental design for [3] as shown."
¶ 15.63 Amend Claim "As Shown and Described"
For proper form (37 CFR 1.153 or 37 CFR 1.1025 ), the claim [1] amended to read: "[2] claim: The ornamental design for [3] as shown and described."
¶ 15.64 Addition of "And Described" to Claim
Because of [1] -- and described -- [2] added to the claim after "shown."