The Subject Patent Already Has Underlining or ... - Bayhdolecentral
The Subject Patent Already Has Underlining or ... - Bayhdolecentral
The Subject Patent Already Has Underlining or ... - Bayhdolecentral
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
1504.02 MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE<br />
It is not necessary f<strong>or</strong> the examiner to cite <strong>or</strong> apply<br />
pri<strong>or</strong> art to show that functional and/<strong>or</strong> hidden features<br />
are old in the art as long as the examiner has<br />
properly relied on evidence to supp<strong>or</strong>t the prima facie<br />
lack of <strong>or</strong>narnentality of these individual features. If<br />
applicant wishes to rely on functional <strong>or</strong> hidden features<br />
as a basis f<strong>or</strong> patentability, the same standard f<strong>or</strong><br />
establishing <strong>or</strong>narnentality under 35U.S.C. 171 must<br />
be applied bef<strong>or</strong>e these features can be given any patentable<br />
weight. See MPEP § l504.01(c).<br />
In evaluating a statut<strong>or</strong>y bar based on 35 U.S.C.<br />
102(b), the experimentaluse exceptionto astatut<strong>or</strong>y<br />
bar f<strong>or</strong> public use <strong>or</strong> sale (see MPEP §2133.03(e»<br />
does not usually apply f<strong>or</strong> design patents. See In re<br />
Mann, 861 F.2d 1581, 8 USPQ2d 2030 (Fed. Cir.<br />
1988). However, Tone Brothers, Inc. v.Sysco C<strong>or</strong>p.,<br />
28 F.3d 1192,1200, 31 USPQ2d 1321,1326 (Fed. Cir.<br />
1994) held that "experimentation clirected to functional<br />
features of a product also containing an <strong>or</strong>namental<br />
design may negate What otherwise would be<br />
considered a public use within the meaning of section<br />
102(b)." See MPEP § 2133.03(e)(6).<br />
Registrationof a design abroad is considered to be<br />
equivalent to patenting under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d)<br />
and 35 U.S.c. 102(d), whether <strong>or</strong> not the f<strong>or</strong>eign grant<br />
August 2001 1500-20<br />
is published. (See Ex parte-Lancaster; 151 USPQ 713<br />
(Bd. App. 1965); Ex parte Marinissen, 155 USPQ 528<br />
(Bd. App. 1966); Appeal No. 239-48, Decided April<br />
30, 1965, 151 USPQ 711, (Bd. App. 1965); Ex parte<br />
Appeal decided September.S, 1968, 866 0.0. 16 (Bd.<br />
App. 1966). <strong>The</strong> basis of this practice is that if the f<strong>or</strong>eign<br />
applicanthas received the protection offered in<br />
the f<strong>or</strong>eign country, no matter what the protection is<br />
called ("patent," "Design Registration," etc.), if the<br />
United States application is timely filed, a claim f<strong>or</strong><br />
pri<strong>or</strong>ity will vest. If, on the other hand, the U.S. application<br />
is not timely filed, a statut<strong>or</strong>y bar arises under<br />
35 U.S.c. 102(d) as modified by 35 U.S.C. 172. In<br />
<strong>or</strong>der f<strong>or</strong> the filing to be timely f<strong>or</strong> pri<strong>or</strong>ity purposes<br />
and to avoid possible statut<strong>or</strong>y bars, the U.S. design<br />
patent application must be made within 6 months of<br />
the f<strong>or</strong>eign filing. See also MPEP § 1504.10.<br />
<strong>The</strong> laws of each f<strong>or</strong>eign country vary in. one <strong>or</strong><br />
m<strong>or</strong>e respects.<br />
<strong>The</strong> following table sets f<strong>or</strong>th the dates on which<br />
design rights can be enf<strong>or</strong>ced in a f<strong>or</strong>eign country<br />
(INID Code (24» and thus, are also useable in a<br />
35 U.S,C. 102(d) rejection as modified by 35 U.S.C.<br />
172. It should be noted that in many countries the date<br />
ofregistration <strong>or</strong> grant is the filing date.