710 F.3d 1362
Fed. Cir.2013Background
- Owens appeals PTO Board decision affirming rejection of design patent ’172 continuation from ’709 priority.
- ’709 issued as D531,515; ’515 patent issuance not contested.
- ’172 includes a broken-line trapezoidal top portion of the pentagonal center-front panel; boundary is unclaimed.
- Examiner found new matter due to broken line, rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112, ¶1 and §103(a) based on lack of written description.
- Board analyzed entitlement to parent's filing date under §120, focusing on whether the parent’s disclosure reasonably conveys possession of the claimed trapezoidal portion; Board affirmed rejection.
- Court affirms the Board’s decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ’172 is entitled to the parent’s §120 filing date | Daniels shows possession of the claimed design in the parent | Dan ies does not allow subdividing; no description of trapezoidal area in parent | Affirmed; no sufficient written description of trapezoidal area in parent |
| Whether unclaimed boundary lines can confer priority under §120 | Daniels-based flexibility allows unclaimed lines to define claimed scope | Unclaimed lines require existing boundary; may misstate description | Affirmed; unclaimed lines do not salvage description here |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Daniels, 144 F.3d 1452 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (priority in continuations; written description sufficiency for §120)
- Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (written description for sufficiency; possession required at filing)
- Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (written description standard in context of patent disclosures)
- In re Klein, 987 F.2d 1569 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (design patent description ordinarily drawn from drawings)
- In re Zahn, 617 F.2d 261 (CCPA 1980) (environmental broken lines not at issue here)
- In re Blum, 374 F.2d 904 (CCPA 1967) (environmental lines guidance in design applications)