81 FR 22233 - Request for Comments on the Application of the Written Description Requirement to Specific Situations in Design Applications

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office

Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 73 (April 15, 2016)

Page Range		22233-22236
FR Document		2016-08760
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (``USPTO'' or ``Office'') is evaluating how the written description requirement applies to certain design applications. In particular, the USPTO has developed a proposed approach for design examiners to apply general principles governing compliance with the written description requirement to specific situations in design applications. The USPTO is seeking public comment on the proposed approach as well as examples that the public believes would be helpful to illustrate the proposed approach or any suggested approach for applying the written description requirement in design applications.
Federal Register, Volume 81 Issue 73 (Friday, April 15, 2016)
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 73 (Friday, April 15, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22233-22236]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2016-08760]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

United States Patent and Trademark Office

[Docket No.: PTO-P-2016-0001]


Request for Comments on the Application of the Written 
Description Requirement to Specific Situations in Design Applications

AGENCY: United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The United States Patent and Trademark Office (``USPTO'' or 
``Office'') is evaluating how the written description requirement 
applies to certain design applications. In particular, the USPTO has 
developed a proposed approach for design examiners to apply general 
principles governing compliance with the written description 
requirement to specific situations in design applications. The USPTO is 
seeking public comment on the

[[Page 22234]]

proposed approach as well as examples that the public believes would be 
helpful to illustrate the proposed approach or any suggested approach 
for applying the written description requirement in design 
applications.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before June 14, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent by electronic mail message over the 
Internet (email) addressed to: [email protected]. 
Comments may also be submitted by mail addressed to: Mail Stop 
Comments--Patents, Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, 
VA 22313-1450, marked to the attention of Nicole D. Haines.
    Although comments may be submitted by postal mail, the USPTO 
prefers to receive comments by email in order to facilitate posting on 
the USPTO's Internet Web site. Plain text is preferred, but comments 
may also be submitted in ADOBE[supreg] portable document format or 
MICROSOFT WORD[supreg] format. Comments not submitted electronically 
should be submitted on paper, and will be digitally scanned into 
ADOBE[supreg] portable document format.
    The comments will be available for public inspection, upon request, 
at the Office of the Commissioner for Patents, currently located at 
Madison Building East, Tenth Floor, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, 
Virginia. Comments also will be available for viewing via the USPTO's 
Internet Web site (http://www.uspto.gov). Because comments will be made 
available for public inspection, information that the submitter does 
not desire to be made public, such as an address or phone number, 
should not be included in the comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information 
may be directed to Nicole D. Haines, Senior Legal Advisor, Office of 
the Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy, by telephone to 
(571) 272-7717, or to Erin M. Harriman, Legal Advisor, Office of the 
Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy, by telephone to 
(571) 272-7747. Alternatively, mail may be addressed to: United States 
Patent and Trademark Office, Mail Stop Comments--Patents, Commissioner 
for Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450, marked to the 
attention of Nicole D. Haines.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background

    The USPTO held a roundtable on March 5, 2014 (``Roundtable''), to 
solicit public opinion regarding the written description requirement of 
35 U.S.C. 112(a), or pre-America Invents Act (``AIA'') 35 U.S.C. 112, 
para. 1 (``35 U.S.C. 112(a)'') as applied to design applications in 
certain limited situations. Specifically, the USPTO sought comments on 
the application of the written description requirement to an amended 
claim or a claim in a continuing design application (``later-claimed 
design'') that includes only a subset of originally disclosed elements 
(the later-claimed design does not introduce any new elements that were 
not originally disclosed). See Request for Comments and Notice of 
Roundtable Event on the Written Description Requirement for Design 
Applications, 79 FR 7171 (Feb. 6, 2014) (``the Notice''). As discussed 
in the Notice, it has been the experience of the USPTO that in the vast 
majority of cases there is no question that a later-claimed design, 
composed of only a subset of originally disclosed elements, satisfies 
the written description requirement. In certain limited situations, 
however, the subset of originally disclosed elements, although visible 
in the original disclosure, composes a later-claimed design that an 
ordinary designer might not have recognized in the original disclosure. 
In those certain limited situations, a question arises as to whether 
the later-claimed design satisfies the written description requirement.
    In the Notice, the USPTO requested input on its proposed factors-
based approach, in which design examiners would consider certain 
enumerated factors when evaluating a claim for compliance with the 
written description requirement. The Roundtable featured public 
presentations and discussion of the topics identified in the Notice. 
The USPTO also received written comments on the topics identified in 
the Notice and discussed at the Roundtable. Details of the Roundtable, 
as well as the public presentations, the USPTO's examples presented for 
discussion, the webcast recording, and the written comments received 
are available at http://www.uspto.gov/patent/contact-patents/roundtable-written-description-requirement-design-applications.
    The USPTO considered all of the comments, both those expressed at 
the Roundtable and those received in writing. Responsive to these 
comments, the USPTO has decided not to pursue the factors-based 
approach set forth in the Notice. Also, in view of the comments, it 
became clear that there exists a need to supplement the current 
provisions in the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (``MPEP'') 
relating to 35 U.S.C. 112 for design applications. A majority of the 
comments urged that the USPTO focus on precedent from the U.S. Court of 
Appeals for the Federal Circuit (``Federal Circuit'') pertaining to 
written description issues in the context of design patents and 
applications. Specific emphasis was placed on Racing Strollers Inc. v. 
TRI Industries Inc., 878 F.2d 1418 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (en banc) and In re 
Daniels, 144 F.3d 1452 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Most comments suggested that 
these cases establish ``a simple visual test'' for determining 
compliance with the written description requirement; that is, the 
written description requirement is satisfied because the elements of 
the later-claimed design are visible in the original disclosure. 
Several comments also addressed In re Owens, 710 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 
2013). In developing the proposed approach set forth in section III of 
this notice, the USPTO considered these Federal Circuit design cases, 
along with other seminal Federal Circuit cases concerning the written 
description requirement.

II. General Principles Governing Compliance With the Written 
Description Requirement for Design Applications

    35 U.S.C. 112(a) provides that ``[t]he specification shall contain 
a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process 
of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms 
as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or 
with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same . . . 
.'' The Federal Circuit has explained that ``requiring a written 
description of the invention plays a vital role in curtailing claims . 
. . that have not been invented, and thus cannot be described.'' Ariad 
Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2010) 
(en banc). Further, ``the purpose of the written description 
requirement is to `ensure that the scope of the right to exclude, as 
set forth in the claims, does not overreach the scope of the inventor's 
contribution to the field of art as described in the patent 
specification.' '' Id., 598 F.3d at 1353-54 (citations omitted).
    In evaluating written description, ``the test for sufficiency is 
whether the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably 
conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of 
the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.'' Id., 598 F.3d at 
1351 (citations omitted). See also Daniels, 144 F.3d at 1456. With 
respect to showing possession, the Federal Circuit has emphasized that 
``the hallmark of written description is disclosure'' and ``[t]hus, 
`possession as

[[Page 22235]]

shown in the disclosure' is a more complete formulation.'' Ariad, 598 
F.3d at 1351. Accordingly, ``the test requires an objective inquiry 
into the four corners of the specification from the perspective of a 
person of ordinary skill in the art'' and ``[b]ased on that inquiry, 
the specification must describe an invention understandable to that 
skilled artisan and show that the inventor actually invented the 
invention claimed.'' Id.
    The test for sufficiency of written description is the same for 
design and utility patents. Daniels, 144 F.3d at 1456. For designs, 
``[i]t is the drawings of the design patent that provide the 
description of the invention.'' Id. (stating, ``Although linguists 
distinguish between a drawing and a writing, the drawings of the design 
patent are viewed in terms of the `written description' requirement of 
Section 112.'').
    In Racing Strollers, the Federal Circuit stated, ``[a]s a practical 
matter, meeting the [written description] requirement of Sec.  112 is, 
in the case of an ornamental design, simply a question of whether the 
earlier application contains illustrations, whatever form they may 
take, depicting the ornamental design illustrated in the later 
application and claimed therein . . . .'' Racing Strollers, 878 F.2d at 
1420. Subsequent cases explain that the written description analysis 
must be conducted from the perspective of an ordinary designer. For 
example, in finding that the inventor in Daniels had possession of a 
later-claimed design to a leecher without leaf ornamentation where an 
earlier design application depicted the leecher with leaf 
ornamentation, the Federal Circuit stated, ``The leecher as an article 
of manufacture is clearly visible in the earlier design application, 
demonstrating to the artisan viewing that application that [the 
inventor] had possession at that time of the later claimed design of 
that article . . . .'' Daniels, 144 F.3d at 1456-57 (citations omitted) 
(emphasis added).
    This principle is articulated again in Owens, where the Federal 
Circuit found that a parent application disclosing a design for a 
bottle with an undivided pentagonal center-front panel did not provide 
written description support for a continuation claiming only the 
trapezoidal top portion of the center-front panel. Owens, 710 F.3d at 
1368. Specifically, the Federal Circuit stated that ``the question for 
written description purposes is whether a skilled artisan would 
recognize upon reading the parent's disclosure that the trapezoidal top 
portion of the front panel might be claimed separately from the 
remainder of that area.'' Owens, 710 F.3d at 1368 (citing Ariad, 598 
F.3d at 1351) (emphasis added). These design cases are consistent with 
the written description case law requiring that the application relied 
upon must reasonably convey to a person of skill in the art that the 
inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter. See Ariad, 598 
F.3d at 1351 (stating, ``the test requires an objective inquiry into 
the four corners of the specification from the perspective of a person 
of ordinary skill in the art'' and ``[b]ased on that inquiry, the 
specification must describe an invention understandable to that skilled 
artisan and show that the inventor actually invented the invention 
claimed.'').

III. Applying the General Principles to Specific Situations in Design 
Applications Where Issues of Compliance With the Written Description 
Requirement May Arise

    A question as to whether the original or earlier disclosure of a 
design provides an adequate written description may arise when an 
amended claim is presented, or where a claim to entitlement of an 
earlier priority date or effective filing date (e.g., under 35 U.S.C. 
120) has been made. A continuation application must comply with the 
written description requirement to be entitled to a parent 
application's effective filing date. See Owens, 710 F.3d at 1366 
(citing Daniels, 144 F.3d at 1456). Similarly, an amended claim must 
find written description support in the original disclosure. In 
determining whether a claim complies with the written description 
requirement, an examiner would bear in mind that ``the written 
description question does not turn upon what has been disclaimed, but 
instead upon whether the original disclosure `clearly allow[s] persons 
of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that [the inventor] invented 
what is claimed.' '' Owens, 710 F.3d at 1368 (quoting Ariad, 598 F.3d 
at 1351) (alternations in original) (emphasis added).
    Issues of compliance with the written description requirement may 
arise where a later-claimed design is composed of only a subset of 
originally disclosed elements (the later-claimed design does not 
introduce any new elements that were not originally disclosed). In the 
vast majority of such situations, the fact that the subset of 
originally disclosed elements composing the later-claimed design is 
visible (claimed or unclaimed) in the original/earlier application is 
sufficient to demonstrate to the ordinary designer viewing the 
original/earlier application that the inventor had possession of the 
later-claimed design at the time of filing the original/earlier 
application. See Racing Strollers, 878 F.2d at 1420 (stating ``[a]s a 
practical matter, meeting the [written description] requirement of 
Sec.  112 is, in the case of an ornamental design, simply a question of 
whether the earlier application contains illustrations, whatever form 
they may take, depicting the ornamental design illustrated in the later 
application and claimed therein . . . .''); see also Daniels, 144 F.3d 
at 1456 (stating ``when an issue of priority arises under Sec.  120 in 
the context of design patent prosecution, one looks to the drawings of 
the earlier application for disclosure of the subject matter claimed in 
the later application'' and finding that ``[t]he leecher as an article 
of manufacture is clearly visible in the earlier design application, 
demonstrating to the artisan viewing that application that [the 
inventor] had possession at that time of the later claimed design of 
that article [alone without the leaf ornamentation claimed in the 
earlier design application]''). In these situations, no further 
analysis by the examiner would be necessary with respect to the written 
description requirement.
    However, as mentioned earlier, limited situations may exist where a 
later-claimed design, composed of only a subset of originally disclosed 
elements (claimed or unclaimed), raises a question as to whether the 
later-claimed design is supported by the original/earlier disclosure, 
even though the elements composing the later-claimed design are visible 
in the original/earlier disclosure. An example of such limited 
situations is the situation in which there is an original disclosure 
composed of a grid of one hundred blocks (or a grid of several million 
pixels) and a later-claimed design composed of only a subset of 
interior blocks (or pixels) that form patterns (e.g., a smiling face or 
a frowning face). In this situation, there is a question as to whether 
the later-claimed design is supported by the original disclosure, even 
though the interior blocks (or pixels) composing the patterns are 
visible in the original disclosure. See also, ``AIPLA Comments to USPTO 
on Written Description,'' March 14, 2014, at page 3, available at 
http://www.uspto.gov/patents/law/comments/dr_a-aipla_20140314.pdf, for 
a similar concept. In such limited situations, the examiner would 
determine whether an ordinary designer would recognize upon reviewing 
the complete original/earlier application that the inventor had 
possession of the later-claimed design in the original/

[[Page 22236]]

earlier disclosure. See Daniels, 144 F.3d at 1456 (stating, ``In 
general, precedent establishes that although the applicant `does not 
have to describe exactly the subject matter claimed, . . . the 
description must clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to 
recognize that [the applicant] invented what is claimed.' '') 
(citations omitted). See also Owens, 710 F.3d at 1368 (quoting Ariad, 
598 F.3d at 1351).
    When making this determination, the examiner would consider what 
the original/earlier application, in its totality (e.g., including the 
title, any descriptive statements, and the drawings), would have 
reasonably conveyed to an ordinary designer at the time of the 
invention, and how an ordinary designer in the art would have designed 
the article that is the subject of the design claim. Such 
considerations can include the nature and intended use of the article 
embodying the claimed design as identified by the title or description 
(see, e.g., MPEP Sec.  1503.01 I (9th ed. 2015)). If, based on these 
considerations, the examiner determines that an ordinary designer would 
not recognize upon reviewing the complete original/earlier application 
the later-claimed design in the original/earlier disclosure, the 
examiner would reject the claim for lack of written description (or in 
the case of a priority or benefit claim, the application would not be 
entitled to the earlier date).
    Since the Office has the initial burden of establishing a prima 
facie case of lack of written description, should an examiner determine 
that a rejection is appropriate, the examiner must set forth express 
findings of fact which support the lack of written description 
determination (see MPEP Sec.  2163 for examination guidelines 
pertaining to the written description requirement). Upon reply by 
applicant, before rejecting the claim again under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for 
lack of written description, the examiner would need to review the 
basis for the rejection in view of the record as a whole, including 
amendments, arguments, and any evidence submitted by applicant, such as 
affidavits or declarations.
    If the record as a whole demonstrates that the written description 
requirement is satisfied, the rejection would not be repeated in the 
next Office action. If, on the other hand, the record does not 
demonstrate that the written description is adequate to support the 
claim, the examiner again would reject the claim under 35 U.S.C. 
112(a), fully respond to applicant's rebuttal arguments, and properly 
treat any further showings submitted by applicant in the reply. When 
rejecting the claim again for lack of written description, the examiner 
would need to thoroughly analyze and discuss any affidavits or 
declarations filed by applicant that are relevant to the 35 U.S.C. 
112(a) written description requirement. See In re Alton, 76 F.3d 1168, 
1176 (Fed. Cir. 1996).

IV. Request for Public Comments

    The USPTO is requesting written public comments on the USPTO's 
proposed approach for applying the written description requirement in 
design applications as discussed in this notice. Because the USPTO is 
considering providing examples after reviewing public comments on the 
proposed approach, the USPTO also is requesting specific examples that 
the public believes would be helpful to illustrate the proposed 
approach or any suggested approach for applying the written description 
requirement in design applications. In particular, the USPTO is seeking 
examples from the public that demonstrate adequate written description 
as well as examples that demonstrate a lack of written description. 
Additionally, examples of situations in which the presence or lack of 
written description is not readily apparent, i.e., examples that are 
close to the line between adequate written description and insufficient 
written description, would be most helpful. Once the USPTO has 
considered the comments and examples received, the USPTO will determine 
how best to proceed in view of the public feedback on the proposed 
approach for applying the written description requirement in design 
applications.

    Dated: April 8, 2016.
Michelle K. Lee,
Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of 
the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
[FR Doc. 2016-08760 Filed 4-14-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-16-P
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2016 / Notices 22233

SUMMARY: The SEDAR Steering office (see ADDRESSES) at least 10 ‘‘gulfguest’’. Click on the ‘‘Library
Committee will meet via webinar to business days prior to the meeting. Folder’’, then scroll down to ‘‘Ad Hoc
discuss the SEDAR assessment schedule Note: The times and sequence specified in Reef Fish Headboat AP’’.
and progress on SEDAR projects. See this agenda are subject to change. The meeting will be webcast over the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. internet. A link to the webcast will be
DATES: The SEDAR Steering Committee Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. available on the Council’s Web site,
will meet from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. on Dated: April 12, 2016. http://www.gulfcouncil.org.
Monday, May 9, 2016. Although other non-emergency issues
Tracey L. Thompson,
not on the agenda may come before the
ADDRESSES: Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Advisory Panel for discussion, in
Meeting address: The Steering Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens
Committee meeting will be held via [FR Doc. 2016–08743 Filed 4–14–16; 8:45 am]
Fishery Conservation and Management
webinar. The webinar is open to BILLING CODE 3510–22–P Act, those issues may not be the subject
members of the public. Those interested of formal action during this meeting.
in participating should contact John Actions of the Advisory Panel will be
Carmichael at SEDAR (see FOR FURTHER DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
restricted to those issues specifically
INFORMATION CONTACT below) at least 24 identified in the agenda and any issues
hours in advance to request webinar National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration arising after publication of this notice
access information. that require emergency action under
SEDAR address: South Atlantic Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Management Council (SAFMC), Council; Public Meeting Fishery Conservation and Management
4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, N. Act, provided the public has been
Charleston, SC 29405; AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries notified of the Council’s intent to take
www.sedarweb.org. Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and action to address the emergency.
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Special Accommodations
Commerce.
Carmichael, Deputy Director for Science
and Statistics, 4055 Faber Place Drive, ACTION: Notice of a public meeting. This meeting is physically accessible
Suite 201, North Charleston, SC 29405; to people with disabilities. Requests for
SUMMARY: The Gulf of Mexico Fishery sign language interpretation or other
phone: (843) 571–4366 or toll free: (866) Management Council will hold a
SAFMC–10; fax: (843) 769–4520; email: auxiliary aids should be directed to
meeting of its Ad Hoc Reef Fish Kathy Pereira at the Gulf Council Office
john.carmichael@safmc.net. Headboat Advisory Panel (AP). (see ADDRESSES), at least 5 working days
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The items DATES: The meeting will convene prior to the meeting.
of discussion are as follows: Tuesday, May 3, 2016, from 9 a.m. to 5 Dated: April 12, 2016.
SEDAR Steering Committee Agenda, p.m. and Wednesday, May 4, 2016, from Tracey L. Thompson,
Monday, May 9 2016, 1 p.m.–3 p.m. 9 a.m. to 12 p.m.
Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable
ADDRESSES: The meeting will take place Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
1. Review and consideration of
at the Gulf of Mexico Fishery
ongoing SEDAR projects including data [FR Doc. 2016–08742 Filed 4–14–16; 8:45 am]
Management Council’s office, 2203 N.
best practices, identification of priority BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
Lois Avenue, Suite 1100, Tampa, FL
stocks to address MRIP data revisions,
33607; telephone: (813) 348–1630.
SSC and Council feedback on the
research track process, and the NMFS FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
stock assessment prioritization. Assane Diagne, Economist, Gulf of
Mexico Fishery Management Council; United States Patent and Trademark
2. Review and consideration of the
assane.diagne@gulfcouncil.org; Office
SEDAR assessment schedule, including
updates on 2016 assessment projects, telephone: (813) 348–1630. [Docket No.: PTO–P–2016–0001]
2017 workshop schedules and data SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The items
deadlines, and future assessment of discussion on the agenda are as Request for Comments on the
priorities. follows: Application of the Written Description
Although non-emergency issues not 1. Adoption of Agenda Requirement to Specific Situations in
contained on this agenda may come 2. Summary of April Council Meeting Design Applications
before this group for discussion, those 3. Management Goals and Objectives for AGENCY: United States Patent and
issues may not be the subject of formal the Headboat Component Trademark Office, Commerce.
action during this meeting. Action will 4. Review of Management Alternatives ACTION: Notice and request for
be restricted to those issues specifically 5. Recommendations to the Council
comments.
identified in this notice and any issues 6. Other Business
arising after publication of this notice —Meeting Adjourns— SUMMARY: The United States Patent and
that require emergency action under The Agenda is subject to change, and Trademark Office (‘‘USPTO’’ or
section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens the latest version along with other ‘‘Office’’) is evaluating how the written
Fishery Conservation and Management meeting materials will be posted on the description requirement applies to
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Act, provided the public has been Council’s file server. To access the file certain design applications. In
notified of the intent to take final action server, the URL is https:// particular, the USPTO has developed a
to address the emergency. public.gulfcouncil.org:5001/webman/ proposed approach for design examiners
index.cgi, or go to the Council’s Web to apply general principles governing
Special Accommodations site and click on the File Server link in compliance with the written description
This meeting is accessible to people the lower left of the Council Web site: requirement to specific situations in
with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary http://www.gulfcouncil.org. The design applications. The USPTO is
aids should be directed to the SAFMC username and password are both seeking public comment on the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:27 Apr 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\15APN1.SGM 15APN1
22234 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2016 / Notices

proposed approach as well as examples description requirement of 35 U.S.C. A majority of the comments urged that
that the public believes would be 112(a), or pre-America Invents Act the USPTO focus on precedent from the
helpful to illustrate the proposed (‘‘AIA’’) 35 U.S.C. 112, para. 1 (‘‘35 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal
approach or any suggested approach for U.S.C. 112(a)’’) as applied to design Circuit (‘‘Federal Circuit’’) pertaining to
applying the written description applications in certain limited written description issues in the context
requirement in design applications. situations. Specifically, the USPTO of design patents and applications.
DATES: Written comments must be sought comments on the application of Specific emphasis was placed on Racing
received on or before June 14, 2016. the written description requirement to Strollers Inc. v. TRI Industries Inc., 878
ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent an amended claim or a claim in a F.2d 1418 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (en banc) and
by electronic mail message over the continuing design application (‘‘later- In re Daniels, 144 F.3d 1452 (Fed. Cir.
Internet (email) addressed to: claimed design’’) that includes only a 1998). Most comments suggested that
DesignWrittenDescription2016@ subset of originally disclosed elements these cases establish ‘‘a simple visual
uspto.gov. Comments may also be (the later-claimed design does not test’’ for determining compliance with
submitted by mail addressed to: Mail introduce any new elements that were the written description requirement;
Stop Comments—Patents, not originally disclosed). See Request that is, the written description
Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box for Comments and Notice of Roundtable requirement is satisfied because the
1450, Alexandria, VA 22313–1450, Event on the Written Description elements of the later-claimed design are
marked to the attention of Nicole D. Requirement for Design Applications, 79 visible in the original disclosure.
Haines. FR 7171 (Feb. 6, 2014) (‘‘the Notice’’). Several comments also addressed In re
Although comments may be As discussed in the Notice, it has been Owens, 710 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
submitted by postal mail, the USPTO the experience of the USPTO that in the In developing the proposed approach
prefers to receive comments by email in vast majority of cases there is no set forth in section III of this notice, the
order to facilitate posting on the question that a later-claimed design, USPTO considered these Federal Circuit
USPTO’s Internet Web site. Plain text is composed of only a subset of originally design cases, along with other seminal
preferred, but comments may also be disclosed elements, satisfies the written Federal Circuit cases concerning the
submitted in ADOBE® portable description requirement. In certain written description requirement.
document format or MICROSOFT limited situations, however, the subset
II. General Principles Governing
WORD® format. Comments not of originally disclosed elements,
Compliance With the Written
although visible in the original
submitted electronically should be Description Requirement for Design
disclosure, composes a later-claimed
submitted on paper, and will be Applications
design that an ordinary designer might
digitally scanned into ADOBE® portable 35 U.S.C. 112(a) provides that ‘‘[t]he
not have recognized in the original
document format. specification shall contain a written
The comments will be available for disclosure. In those certain limited
situations, a question arises as to description of the invention, and of the
public inspection, upon request, at the manner and process of making and
Office of the Commissioner for Patents, whether the later-claimed design
satisfies the written description using it, in such full, clear, concise, and
currently located at Madison Building exact terms as to enable any person
requirement.
East, Tenth Floor, 600 Dulany Street, skilled in the art to which it pertains, or
In the Notice, the USPTO requested
Alexandria, Virginia. Comments also input on its proposed factors-based with which it is most nearly connected,
will be available for viewing via the approach, in which design examiners to make and use the same . . . .’’ The
USPTO’s Internet Web site (http:// would consider certain enumerated Federal Circuit has explained that
www.uspto.gov). Because comments will factors when evaluating a claim for ‘‘requiring a written description of the
be made available for public inspection, compliance with the written description invention plays a vital role in curtailing
information that the submitter does not requirement. The Roundtable featured claims . . . that have not been invented,
desire to be made public, such as an public presentations and discussion of and thus cannot be described.’’ Ariad
address or phone number, should not be the topics identified in the Notice. The Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d
included in the comments. USPTO also received written comments 1336, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: on the topics identified in the Notice Further, ‘‘the purpose of the written
Requests for additional information may and discussed at the Roundtable. Details description requirement is to ‘ensure
be directed to Nicole D. Haines, Senior of the Roundtable, as well as the public that the scope of the right to exclude, as
Legal Advisor, Office of the Deputy presentations, the USPTO’s examples set forth in the claims, does not
Commissioner for Patent Examination presented for discussion, the webcast overreach the scope of the inventor’s
Policy, by telephone to (571) 272–7717, recording, and the written comments contribution to the field of art as
or to Erin M. Harriman, Legal Advisor, received are available at http:// described in the patent specification.’ ’’
Office of the Deputy Commissioner for www.uspto.gov/patent/contact-patents/ Id., 598 F.3d at 1353–54 (citations
Patent Examination Policy, by telephone roundtable-written-description- omitted).
to (571) 272–7747. Alternatively, mail requirement-design-applications. In evaluating written description, ‘‘the
may be addressed to: United States The USPTO considered all of the test for sufficiency is whether the
Patent and Trademark Office, Mail Stop comments, both those expressed at the disclosure of the application relied
Comments—Patents, Commissioner for Roundtable and those received in upon reasonably conveys to those
Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA writing. Responsive to these comments, skilled in the art that the inventor had
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

22313–1450, marked to the attention of the USPTO has decided not to pursue possession of the claimed subject matter
Nicole D. Haines. the factors-based approach set forth in as of the filing date.’’ Id., 598 F.3d at
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: the Notice. Also, in view of the 1351 (citations omitted). See also
comments, it became clear that there Daniels, 144 F.3d at 1456. With respect
I. Background exists a need to supplement the current to showing possession, the Federal
The USPTO held a roundtable on provisions in the Manual of Patent Circuit has emphasized that ‘‘the
March 5, 2014 (‘‘Roundtable’’), to solicit Examining Procedure (‘‘MPEP’’) relating hallmark of written description is
public opinion regarding the written to 35 U.S.C. 112 for design applications. disclosure’’ and ‘‘[t]hus, ‘possession as

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:27 Apr 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\15APN1.SGM 15APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2016 / Notices 22235

shown in the disclosure’ is a more the remainder of that area.’’ Owens, 710 that the inventor had possession of the
complete formulation.’’ Ariad, 598 F.3d F.3d at 1368 (citing Ariad, 598 F.3d at later-claimed design at the time of filing
at 1351. Accordingly, ‘‘the test requires 1351) (emphasis added). These design the original/earlier application. See
an objective inquiry into the four cases are consistent with the written Racing Strollers, 878 F.2d at 1420
corners of the specification from the description case law requiring that the (stating ‘‘[a]s a practical matter, meeting
perspective of a person of ordinary skill application relied upon must reasonably the [written description] requirement of
in the art’’ and ‘‘[b]ased on that inquiry, convey to a person of skill in the art that § 112 is, in the case of an ornamental
the specification must describe an the inventor had possession of the design, simply a question of whether the
invention understandable to that skilled claimed subject matter. See Ariad, 598 earlier application contains
artisan and show that the inventor F.3d at 1351 (stating, ‘‘the test requires illustrations, whatever form they may
actually invented the invention an objective inquiry into the four take, depicting the ornamental design
claimed.’’ Id. corners of the specification from the illustrated in the later application and
The test for sufficiency of written perspective of a person of ordinary skill claimed therein . . . .’’); see also
description is the same for design and in the art’’ and ‘‘[b]ased on that inquiry, Daniels, 144 F.3d at 1456 (stating ‘‘when
utility patents. Daniels, 144 F.3d at the specification must describe an an issue of priority arises under § 120 in
1456. For designs, ‘‘[i]t is the drawings invention understandable to that skilled the context of design patent
of the design patent that provide the artisan and show that the inventor prosecution, one looks to the drawings
description of the invention.’’ Id. actually invented the invention of the earlier application for disclosure
(stating, ‘‘Although linguists distinguish claimed.’’). of the subject matter claimed in the later
between a drawing and a writing, the application’’ and finding that ‘‘[t]he
drawings of the design patent are III. Applying the General Principles to
Specific Situations in Design leecher as an article of manufacture is
viewed in terms of the ‘written clearly visible in the earlier design
description’ requirement of Section Applications Where Issues of
Compliance With the Written application, demonstrating to the artisan
112.’’). viewing that application that [the
In Racing Strollers, the Federal Circuit Description Requirement May Arise
inventor] had possession at that time of
stated, ‘‘[a]s a practical matter, meeting A question as to whether the original the later claimed design of that article
the [written description] requirement of or earlier disclosure of a design provides [alone without the leaf ornamentation
§ 112 is, in the case of an ornamental an adequate written description may claimed in the earlier design
design, simply a question of whether the arise when an amended claim is application]’’). In these situations, no
earlier application contains presented, or where a claim to
further analysis by the examiner would
illustrations, whatever form they may entitlement of an earlier priority date or
be necessary with respect to the written
take, depicting the ornamental design effective filing date (e.g., under 35
description requirement.
illustrated in the later application and U.S.C. 120) has been made. A
claimed therein . . . .’’ Racing Strollers, continuation application must comply However, as mentioned earlier,
878 F.2d at 1420. Subsequent cases with the written description limited situations may exist where a
explain that the written description requirement to be entitled to a parent later-claimed design, composed of only
analysis must be conducted from the application’s effective filing date. See a subset of originally disclosed elements
perspective of an ordinary designer. For Owens, 710 F.3d at 1366 (citing Daniels, (claimed or unclaimed), raises a
example, in finding that the inventor in 144 F.3d at 1456). Similarly, an question as to whether the later-claimed
Daniels had possession of a later- amended claim must find written design is supported by the original/
claimed design to a leecher without leaf description support in the original earlier disclosure, even though the
ornamentation where an earlier design disclosure. In determining whether a elements composing the later-claimed
application depicted the leecher with claim complies with the written design are visible in the original/earlier
leaf ornamentation, the Federal Circuit description requirement, an examiner disclosure. An example of such limited
stated, ‘‘The leecher as an article of would bear in mind that ‘‘the written situations is the situation in which there
manufacture is clearly visible in the description question does not turn upon is an original disclosure composed of a
earlier design application, what has been disclaimed, but instead grid of one hundred blocks (or a grid of
demonstrating to the artisan viewing upon whether the original disclosure several million pixels) and a later-
that application that [the inventor] had ‘clearly allow[s] persons of ordinary claimed design composed of only a
possession at that time of the later skill in the art to recognize that [the subset of interior blocks (or pixels) that
claimed design of that article . . . .’’ inventor] invented what is claimed.’ ’’ form patterns (e.g., a smiling face or a
Daniels, 144 F.3d at 1456–57 (citations Owens, 710 F.3d at 1368 (quoting Ariad, frowning face). In this situation, there is
omitted) (emphasis added). 598 F.3d at 1351) (alternations in a question as to whether the later-
This principle is articulated again in original) (emphasis added). claimed design is supported by the
Owens, where the Federal Circuit found Issues of compliance with the written original disclosure, even though the
that a parent application disclosing a description requirement may arise interior blocks (or pixels) composing the
design for a bottle with an undivided where a later-claimed design is patterns are visible in the original
pentagonal center-front panel did not composed of only a subset of originally disclosure. See also, ‘‘AIPLA Comments
provide written description support for disclosed elements (the later-claimed to USPTO on Written Description,’’
a continuation claiming only the design does not introduce any new March 14, 2014, at page 3, available at
trapezoidal top portion of the center- elements that were not originally http://www.uspto.gov/patents/law/
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

front panel. Owens, 710 F.3d at 1368. disclosed). In the vast majority of such comments/dr_a-aipla_20140314.pdf, for
Specifically, the Federal Circuit stated situations, the fact that the subset of a similar concept. In such limited
that ‘‘the question for written originally disclosed elements situations, the examiner would
description purposes is whether a composing the later-claimed design is determine whether an ordinary designer
skilled artisan would recognize upon visible (claimed or unclaimed) in the would recognize upon reviewing the
reading the parent’s disclosure that the original/earlier application is sufficient complete original/earlier application
trapezoidal top portion of the front to demonstrate to the ordinary designer that the inventor had possession of the
panel might be claimed separately from viewing the original/earlier application later-claimed design in the original/

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:27 Apr 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\15APN1.SGM 15APN1
Document Created: 2016-04-15 00:55:04
Document Modified: 2016-04-15 00:55:04
Category		Regulatory Information
Collection		Federal Register
sudoc Class		AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106:
Publisher		Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration
Section		Notices
Action		Notice and request for comments.
Dates		Written comments must be received on or before June 14, 2016.
Contact		Requests for additional information may be directed to Nicole D. Haines, Senior Legal Advisor, Office of the Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy, by telephone to (571) 272-7717, or to Erin M. Harriman, Legal Advisor, Office of the Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy, by telephone to
FR Citation		81 FR 22233
81 FR 22233 - Request for Comments on the Application of the Written Description Requirement to Specific Situations in Design Applications

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCEUnited States Patent and Trademark Office

Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 73 (April 15, 2016)

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
