dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
2
share rss forum feed


KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
reply to cdru

Re: Are any of you guys surprised about this?

Yes, but it's all examples of prior art which then leads to the failure of the "Obviousness" test.

Apple actually has patents based on how their devices look or are shaped.

This is what I mean by "should be invalidated."
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini


Badonkadonk
Premium
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Dish Network

Obviousness is strongest when only one or two pieces of prior art are used. Third is sometimes okay. More than that and the argument will usually fail. I had an examiner throw four pieces of prior art at me once. I called him up and we had a discussion. He agreed that four references was probably too many and he withdrew his rejection.
--
I've heard, and I don't know if it's true, that Harry Reid takes it up the kiester from farm animals.



cdru
Go Colts
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:7
reply to KrK

said by KrK:

Apple actually has patents based on how their devices look or are shaped.

ALL design patents are for how an object look or are shaped. For example, Coke's bottle shape. That's what sets them apart from utility patents which covers functionality with no real regard for non-functional design.

I'm not saying that their patents are valid or not, but there are thousands upon thousands of design patents that are "obvious" but aren't really.