IPhone design patent declared invalid (non-final)

[jaclaz]

U.S. patent office considers Apple's D'677 iPhone design patent invalid on multiple grounds

http://www.fosspatents.com/2015/08/us-patent-office-considers-apples-d677.html

 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/274897046/15-08-05-Non-final-Rejection-of-Apple-D-677-Patent

 

I like the form of the sentence:

It would have been obvious to a designer of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to ....

 

 

jaclaz

[Tripredacus]

That is a difficult read! I am going to guess that one of the reasons was that they filed Patent1 which was accepted and then Patent2 which was accepted. Upon further review, Patent2 is now being rejected because it is too similar to Patent1?

[jaclaz]

That is a difficult read! I am going to guess that one of the reasons was that they filed Patent1 which was accepted and then Patent2 which was accepted. Upon further review, Patent2 is now being rejected because it is too similar to Patent1?

Well that and previous Patents (also from other firms) in a more "correct" and "formal" language the general idea is still revolving around the (partially rejected) thesis by Samsung that "there are not so many different ways to design a rectangle with rounded corners", and though it may seem obvious to me and you that a loudspeaker/earpiece would go on the top, the rectangular screen would go in the center and button(s) (if any) would likely go in the mid-bottom (and making a button a circular shape is not patentable as it has been done since buttons were invented) and as well a microphone would go on the bottom, till now this has been not "legally" obvious. 

 

jaclaz