Originally Posted by Jessi
You really shouldn't try to debate patents when you don't understand the basics about them. Utility patents require that they describe inventions that are novel and reduced to practice. "Unique features" would be required for a utility patent.
You're debating a design patent. A design patent is quite different. It's closer to a trademark than a utility patent.
Whether out of ignorance or dishonesty, it is profoundly troubling that you would pretend like apple attempted to patent the rounded rect.
Especially given the fact that if you'd bothered to read the patent application you'd find pages of references to prior design patents going back years.
I find it "profoundly troubling" that you'd jump in to denigrate another member on a subject you apparently aren't as familiar with as you imagine you are. Ignorance or dishonesty?
Jessi, what unique ornamental element(s) does the '286 patent offer protection for? Yes, design patent applications require that the protected design be unique
, as the USPTO words it " new, original
and ornamental design for an article of manufacture."
That's both logical and required. All the cites of prior art and multiple renderings of items with broken lines don't describe what Apple would like to receive patent protection for. Apple specifically stated in the application that items with broken lines were not submitted for consideration. They just added more confusion than clarity to this particular application as evidenced by the examiners references to elements that Apple is not even attempting to claim.
So do you see any requested protection for anything ornamental described by Apple's application other than a simple rectangle? Hint: Look for the only ornamental element in the drawings denoted by a solid line. If you're gonna talk the talk. . .
EDIT: Why am I not surprised you declined to answer. Edited by Gatorguy - 4/20/14 at 7:16am