1500

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

(

# Chapter 1500 Design Patents

1501
Rules Applicable

1502
Definition of a Design

1503
Elements of a Design Application

1503.01 Specification and Claim

1503.02 Drawing

1504
Examination

1504.01 Segregable Parts

1505
Allowance and Term of Design Patent

1506
Foreign Filing Dates

€

The right to a patent for a design stems from :
35 U. S. C. 171. Patents for designs. Whoever in-
vents any new, original and ornamental design for an
article of manufacture may obtain a patent therefor,
subject to the conditions and requirements of this
title.

The provisions of this title relating to patents for
inventions shall apply to patents for designs, except
as otherwise provided.

## 1501 Rules Applicable

Rule 151. Rules applicable. The rules relating to
applications for patents for other inventions or dis-
coveries are also applicable to applications for patents
for designs except as otherwise provided.

The other rules applying only to patents for
designs are set forth in the sections that follow.

## 1502 Definition of a Design

The design of an object consists of the visual
characteristics or aspects displayed by the ob-
ject. It is the appearance presented by the ob-
ject which creates an impression, through the
eye upon the mind of the observer.

As a design is manifested in appearance the
subject matter of a design application may re-
late to the configuration or shape of an object,
to the surface ornamentation thereof, or both.

(

A design is inseparable from the object and
cannot exist alone merely as a scheme of surface
ornamentation. It must be a definite, precon-
ceived thing, capable of reproduction and not
merely the chance result of a method.

# 1503 Elements of a Design Applica- tion

A design application has essentially the ele-
ments required of an application for a patent

for a "mechanical" invention or discovery (see
Chapter 600). However, unlike the latter where
a preamble to the specification is no longer re-
quired, a preamble still remains a requirement
in a design application (Rule 154) and is
printed as part of the specification of the design
patent.

If the single signature form be used it must
be accompanied by a separate sheet of specifi-
cation which includes a preamble.

In design applications the following should
be observed in addition to the instruction set
forth in 605.04 to 605.05 (a) pertaining to signa-
ture and name.

If the name is typewritten without the middle
initial or name, but the signature contains the
middle initial or name, amendment should be
required that the typewritten name conform
with applicant's signature.

## 1503.01 Specification and Claim

Rule 153 (first paragraph). Title, description and
claim. The title of the design must designate the
particular article. No specific description, other than
a reference to the drawing, is ordinarily required or
permitted. 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.

Rule 154. Arrangement of specification. The follow-
ing order of arrangement should be observed in framing
design specifications :

(a) Preamble, stating name and residence of the
applicant and title of the design.

(b) Description of the figure or figures of the
drawing.

(e) Description, if any.

(d) Claim.

(e) Signature of applicant. (See rule 57.)

The title is of great importance in a design
application. It serves to identify the article
in which the design is embodied and which is
shown in the drawing, by the name generally
used by the public. The title should be to a
specific definite article. Thus a stove would be
called a "Stove" and not a "Heating Device."
The same title is used in the petition, in the pre-
amble to the specification, in the description of

(

<!-- PageBreak -->

<!-- PageHeader="1503.02" -->
<!-- PageHeader="MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE" -->

the drawing, and in the claim. The title should
correspond to the name of the article shown.

To allow latitude of construction it is permis-
sible to add to the title-"or similar article."
The title in the preamble may be in the plural-
Design for Chairs-or in the singular-Design
for a Chair, but in the claim it must be in the
singular.

The title implies that the type of article
named is old, but that the form shown is new.
The title may particularize the type named by
specifying a use "Bottle for Perfumes" or by
indicating a structural type-"Vacuum Bottle."

Any description of the design in the specifica-
tion other than a brief description of the draw-
ing figures is generally not necessary, for as
a rule the illustration is its own best descrip-
tion. If there be any such special description
it must be of the appearance of the article and
not its manner of construction nor its function.

Where there is more than one feature of nov-
elty in a case, the principal feature may be em-
phasized in the description by a "dominant
feature" clause. Likewise it is permissible to
emphasize some specific point of novelty as a
"characteristic" or an "important" or an "essen-
tial" part of the design. "Or, as stated under
"Drawing," recourse may be had to dotted and
full line illustration to differentiate between the
immaterial and the material parts of the design.

Statements in the specification which describe
or suggest modifications of the design shown on
the drawing are not permitted. Similarly a
statement amounting to a disclaimer is im-
proper and not permitted.

Only one claim is required or permissible in
a design application and this claim should be
in formal terms to the ornamental design for
the article (specifying name) as shown (In re
Eppinger 1938 C. D. 257; 492 O. G. 250).

Where there is a special description, the claim
must include the words, "and described" fol-
lowing "shown."

### 1503.02 Drawing

Rule 152. Drawing. The design must be represented
by a drawing made in conformity with the rules laid
down for drawings of mechanical inventions and must
contain a sufficient number of views to constitute a
complete disclosure of the appearance of the article.
Appropriate surface shading must be used to show
the character or contour of the surfaces represented.

The necessity for good drawings in a design
application cannot be overemphasized. As the
drawing constitutes substantially the whole dis-
closure of the design, it is of utmost importance

that it be so well executed both as to clarity of
showing and completeness that nothing regard-
ing the shape, configuration and surface orna-
mentation of the article sought to be patented
is left to conjecture.

In general, the showing should be strictly
confined to the article on which design patent
protection is sought and no additional disclo-
sure in the nature of structure to illustrate en-
vironmental use or association with other
apparatus not an actual part of the design, is
ordinarily permitted. Only in those cases
where clarity of disclosure would be greatly
sacrificed is such extraneous showing allowed,
and in such cases it is permitted only by show-
ing the same in dotted lines with a statement in-
serted in the specification to the effect that the
dotted line showing is for illustrative purposes
only.

Dotted or broken line showing is also em-
ployed to show such portions of the article
claimed which are not important. Such a show-
ing should be explained in the specification by
a statement that the dominant features of the
design reside in the portions shown in full lines.
In every case dotted line showing is notice that
the portion so shown is an immaterial part of
the design.

With practically all articles, except flat
goods, such as fabrics, at least two views are
necessary, showing the article in three dimen-
sions. Occasionally a good perspective view
alone is sufficient.

The drawing figures should be appropriately
surface shaded to show character or contour of
the surface represented. This is of particular
importance in the showing of three dimensional
articles where it is necessary to clearly delineate
plane, concave, convex, raised and depressed
surfaces of the article and distinguish between
open and closed areas thereof.

While a sectional view that more clearly
brings out the design is permissible (ex parte
Lohman, 1912 C. D. 336; 184 O. G. 287) those
that are presented for the evident purpose of
including purely structural features, or exhib-
iting mechanical function, are not favored. It
is the article as seen by the observer, and not
internal structure, which should be shown.

In design applications, just as in "mechani-
cal" cases, additional or amended illustration
involving new matter is refused entry. The
practice of including in the application when
filed a photograph or model of the article, or in
the case of a flat article, such as cloth, a sample
showing a complete unit of the design is per-

¿

8

E

É

<!-- PageBreak -->

<!-- PageHeader="DESIGN PATENTS" -->
<!-- PageHeader="1504.01" -->

missible and may be followed. An insufficient
drawing may be fatal to validity.

# 1504 Examination

In design cases as in "mechanical" cases,
novelty and invention are necessary prereq-
uisites to the grant of a patent. In the case of
designs, the inventive novelty resides in the
shape or configuration or ornamentation as
determining the appearance or visual aspect of
the object or article of manufacture in contra-
distinction to the structure of a machine, article
of manufacture or the constitution of a compo-
sition of matter.

The fact that an object is new and ornamental
is not conclusive of its patentability as a design,
since the ornate effect may be due to color,
workmanship, finish, and the like, factors of
appearance that play no part in determining the
question of patentable design.

Whether or not a design is new and original
must generally be determined by a search in the
class of design patents to which the article
claimed belongs and in analagous classes. If
no satisfactory anticipation be found here, the
search must be extended to the mechanical divi-
sion handling inventions of the same general
type. Catalogs and trade journals are also
consulted. In fact, there are no definite limits
to the field of search.

Inasmuch as a design patent deals with ap-
pearance only, the test to be applied in deter-
mining the question of anticipation is identity
or similarity of appearance. If a reference is
found that is identical in appearance, the ques-
tion of patentability is, of course, definitely
settled in the negative.

However, it more often occurs that the refer-
ence differs in some respects from the design
claimed and the question of invention is thus
presented. Does the difference in configuration
of applicant's design represent invention and
does such difference add to its ornamental
value? Is the difference for structural or func-
tional reasons, or for the purpose of ornamenta-
tion ?

Two or more articles are often shown in the
drawing of an application, while the statute
permits only a single design in one case. If it
is clear that applicant has disclosed and is at-
tempting to claim two or more different designs
or variations of the same design, a rejection on
the ground that a multiplicity of designs is
claimed may result. The statute provides for
design patent protection for "an article" and
makes no provision for modifications or species

of a design in an application (35 U. S. C. 171;
Ex parte Whittington 1926 C. D. 51; 347 O. G.
281).

When an assembly of articles is shown, the
question often presented is whether such assem-
bly does in fact constitute a unitary design, or
is merely an aggregation of designs. If it is
the latter, it is a ground for a rejection of the
claim.

Under the liberal design practice, many
things are regarded as unitary designs because
of their association when on sale, when the same
thing would not support a combination claim
in a mechanical patent. Thus a "combined
inkwell, stand and ash tray" might consist of
separable parts, and yet form a unitary design,
because of some common theme running through
them, or because intended to be sold as a unit.

When an applicant presents two or more ap-
plications which are allowable over the prior
art but which do not in the opinion of the Ex-
aminer differ patentably from one another, a
requirement for election between the applica-
tions is made. If applicant refuses to elect, one
of the applications is chosen by the Examiner
and allowed and the other (or others) rejected
thereon. (Harpignies, 167 Ms. D. 329, in Pat-
ent File of Des. Pat. D-136,559, Oct. 26, 1943.)

As novelty of configuration or surface orna-
mentation is a requisite for design patentabil-
ity, a design which is merely simulative of a
known object is not patentable and this is true
even though it is used for a different purpose
or function.

A utility patent and a design patent may be
based on the same subject matter; however,
there must be a clearly patentable distinction be-
tween them. Where the utility invention as de-
fined by the claims cannot be made without in-
fringing the design, double patenting exists and
two patents cannot issue; but no double pat-
enting is present where a device can be made in
accordance with the claims of the utility patent
that has an appearance so different from the
design as not to infringe the same. (In re Bar-
ber, 1936, C. D. 184; 465 O. G. 724.)

# 1504.01 Segregable Parts

Since under the law a design patent covers
only the design as an entirety and does not ex-
tend to segregable parts (contrasting in this
respect to the copyright law which extends pro-
tection to "all the copyrightable component
parts"), the only way to protect such parts is by
taking out separate patents therefor. Ex parte
Sanford, 1914, C. D. 69 ; 204 O. G. 1346.)

<!-- PageBreak -->

<!-- PageHeader="MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE" -->

# 1505 Allowance and Term of Design Patent

Rule 155. Term of design patent. (a) The petition
for a design patent should specify the term, 31%, 7, or
14 years, for which a design patent is sought; but if no
term is specified, or if the term specified is greater than
that covered by the fee paid, the application will
be accepted as filed for a term corresponding to the fee
received, and the applicant so notified.

(b) Where the applicant initially requests that the
patent issue for one of the shorter terms, he may, at
any time before the application is allowed and passed
to issue, upon the payment of the additional sum neces-
sary, amend his application by requesting that the
patent be issued for a longer term. In order to afford
the applicant an opportunity for making such an
amendment and paying the additional sum, the Office
may notify him before the application is allowed and
passed to issue unless otherwise directed, but failure, of
the Office to send or of the applicant to receive such
notification will not warrant any change in the term
requested after the application is allowed and passed
to issue.

(Founded on 35 U. S. C. 173.)

It is unnecessary upon filing a design applica-
tion to pay the fee for the maximum term of 14
years. Payment of a ten dollar fee entitles the
applicant to an examination as to patentabil-
ity and to a patent for 31/2 years if found
patentable. Request may be made at the time
of filing, or at any time before allowance, that
applicant be notified before allowance, so that
he may extend the term should he desire. Upon
sending such notice the application is withheld
from allowance for 30 days to permit the filing
of the additional fee for such longer term as
may be selected. If no response is received to

such notice the application is thereupon allowed,
and goes to patent for the term corresponding
to the fee originally paid.

It is to be noted that failure on the part of
the Office to send or of the applicant to receive
such notice will not warrant any change in the
term after the application is passed to issue.
Furthermore, issuance of a design patent may
not be delayed under the provisions of Rule 314
as is the case with utility patent applications
and any suspension beyond the thirty day notice
period must be obtained in accordance with the
provisions of Rule 103.

The term of a design patent may not be ex-
tended by reissue.

## 1506 Foreign Filing Dates

The provisions of 35 U. S. C. 119 (Quoted in
201.18) apply also to design applications. It
is emphasized, however, in the case of a design
application that, before the application can ob-
tain the benefit of a foreign filing date, it must
be filed within six months from the earliest date
on which any foreign application for the same
design was filed.

35 U. S. C. 172. Right of priority. The right of
priority provided for by section 119 of this title and
the time specified in section 102 (d) shall be six months
in the case of designs.

In view of the fact that there is no final fee
in case of designs, the part of Rule 55 specify-
ing the date of payment of the final fee as the
latest date for filing the claim of priority and
the certified copy is inapplicable, and the papers
may be filed any time before the issuance of the
design patent unless earlier required as specified
in Rule 55.