¶ 15.19.07.fti Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)/103(a) rejection - design claimed in a design patent having an earlier effective filing date and no common assignee
The claim is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being obvious over the claim in design patent [1].
Based upon the different inventive entity and the earlier effective U.S. filing date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e).
Although the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a designer having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains, the invention is not patentable.
[2]
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph should be used when the claimed design in the application being examined is obvious over the design claimed in a design patent having an earlier effective filing date.
2. In bracket 2, provide explanation of obviousness including differences and follow explanation with form paragraphs 15.70.fti and 15.67 or 15.68.
3. For applications with an actual filing date on or after March 16, 2013, that claim priority to, or the benefit of, an application filed before March 16, 2013, this form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 15.10.15.