Ex parte Donaldson
United States Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences
26 U.S.P.Q.2d 1250 (1992)
- Written by Mike Cicero , JD
Facts
Janaia Donaldson (plaintiff) filed a design-patent application, the sole claim of which read: “The ornamental design for a softkey display or the like, as shown and described.” The drawings in the specification of Donaldson’s application showed only the designs by themselves, and not as part of any computer or computer screen. A patent examiner (defendant) at the United States Patent and Trademark Office rejected Donaldson’s claim as nonstatutory, finding that the claimed design was not an ornamental design for an article of manufacture, as required by 35 U.S.C. § 171. In response, Donaldson argued that her claimed design was “an ornamental design for the display screen of a programmed computer system,” and that such a system qualified as an article of manufacture. The examiner responded to Donaldson’s argument by pointing out that Donaldson’s drawings did not depict any computer system and that an applicable regulation required that the article of manufacture be shown in the drawings. Accordingly, the examiner interposed a final rejection of Donaldson’s claim. Donaldson appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Manbeck, Comm’r.)
What to do next…
Here's why 807,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.