The article discusses the complexities of claiming priority in design patents using the case In re Floyd as an example. It highlights the need for explicit disclosure of design features in utility patents to ensure successful priority claims. The Federal Circuit's decision pointed out that while the utility filing provided various array layouts, it lacked the necessary depiction of the specific 6x5 array claimed later in the design application, resulting in denial of priority. It also emphasizes the distinct standards of written description versus anticipation, where an inadequate priority document might still qualify as an anticipatory reference.
The claimed design is a cooling blanket -- with the drawings showing a 6x5 array pattern. The priority filing included a 6x6 array, a 6x4 array.
The case illustrates the 'daylight' between written description and anticipation standards, creating a trap where an applicant's own published application can fail to provide written description support.
Collection
[
|
...
]