Category Archives: Design
Kitchen glove design; Duncan Kitchen Grips; U.S. Design Pat. No. D647,252
U.S. Design Patent No. D647,252, issued on October 18, 2011 to Duncan Kitchen Grips of Tustin, CA, discloses a design for a kitchen glove.
According to its website, the raised nub surface texture of Duncan’s kitchen gloves provide various advantages, such as “more insulation between the hand and the heat source” and ”a better, safer, non-slip grip.” In addition, its material is water-repellent, flexible, stain resistant, and non-porous (so it is resistant to bacteria buildup).
As a design patent, the ’252 patent only covers the decorative, non-functional aspects of the design shown in the figures of the patent. Therefore, it doesn’t cover the raised nub surface texture itself, which is a functional feature of the glove, but it does cover the particular design or pattern of nubs that are shown in the figures. Also, the protected design does not include the zig-zag stitching along the outside edge of the glove, or the “KG” insignias all over the glove, since these features are shown with dashed lines in the figures of the ’252 patent.
In early 2009, Duncan Kitchen Grips was acquired by Browne & Co. of Ontario, Canada. According to the USPTO database, Duncan owns five U.S. design patents, all issued in 2011, for various designs of kitchen mitts, gloves, and trivets.
Air gap cover; Evriholder Products, Inc.; U.S. Design Pat. No. D642,243
U.S. Design Patent No. D642,243, issued on July 26, 2011 to Evriholder Products, Inc. of Anaheim, CA, discloses a design for a cover that fits over a sink’s air gap.
The air gap of a kitchen sink prevents potentially dirty water from backflowing into and contaminating the clean water line and the dishwasher. They often appear as a cylindrical protrusion near the back of the sink. According to the company’s website, Evriholder markets the SinkSation™ air gap cover which “fits over the air gap cover on your kitchen sink to hold sponges, soap, and flowers” and “turns otherwise ugly plumbing into functional storage space.” As seen above, the photos from Evriholder’s website show that the SinkSation™ air gap cover appears to conform to the design of the ’243 patent.
Evriholder Products is “a family owned business founded in 1995 … to manufacture and market a small line of tie and belt organizers” and which grew to develop a wide range of products for kitchen, bath, cleaning, and storage that are licensed to many different household-familiar brands. The company’s website states that it “develops 30 to 50 new products a year” and highlights examples such as the goldfish-shaped goldfish cracker container for Pepperidge Farm and sandwich crust cutters that divide sandwiches into kid-fun shapes. In an online interview earlier this year, Evriholder’s CEO, Gary Seehoff, describes how the company got started and describes some of the aspects of distribution, manufacturing, and other issues of interest to inventors.
According to the USPTO database, Evriholder owns 27 U.S. patents to date, all of which are design patents, and 11 of which were received in 2011.
Wall switch designs; RGB Systems, Inc.; U.S. Design Pat. Nos. D636,350 / D636,351 / D636,352
U.S. Design Patent Nos. D636,350, D636,351, and D636,352, issued on April 19, 2011 to RGB Systems, Inc. of Anaheim, CA, disclose three different designs for a wall switch.
RGB Systems does business as Extron Electronics of Anaheim, CA, a manufacturer of professional audio-visual (AV) system integration products. According to the company’s website, Extron’s products are used in classrooms, board and conference rooms, public spaces, healthcare institutions, courts and government buildings, and residential home theaters. Presumably, the button layouts shown in the design patents are intended to be used with various AV system installations. According to the USPTO database, RGB Systems owns 48 U.S. patents, 20 of which are design patents, including these three.
For design patents, the scope of protection is determined by the drawings. The solid lines denote the features of the design that are protected, while the broken or dashed lines merely show unprotected features (e.g., the context in which the design might be found). The drawings have to be carefully prepared, since having unessential elements shown in solid lines can narrow the scope of protection.
For example, had these design patents showed the wall plate in solid lines, then competitors using the same button layouts but with different or no wall plates might well avoid infringing the patents. Therefore, it is important to get the drawings to correctly show the distinctions between features of the design that are intended to be protected (shown in solid lines) and features that are not considered to be part of the protected design (shown in broken lines).
Wheel designs for motorcycles; Performance Machine, Inc.; US Design Pat. Nos. D630,145, D630,146, D630,147
U.S. Design Patent Nos. D630,145, D630,146, and D630,147, issued on January 4, 2011 to Performance Machine, Inc. of La Palma, CA, disclose three ornamental wheel designs.
Under the U.S. patent laws, a patent may only be directed to a single invention. For design patent applications with multiple figures, this requirement can give rise to a rejection by the USPTO if the designs shown in the various figures of the application are sufficiently different to warrant considering the designs as separate, multiple inventions. In such instances, the applicant must amend the application to only include one design selected to be protected by a patent resulting from the present application. Patent protection of the other designs can be pursued by filing additional design patent applications that have only one design per application. For the ’145, ’146, and ’147 design patents, while each of these wheel designs has five equally spaced spokes, these three designs are sufficiently different from one another to be protected by three separate design patents.
According to its blog, “Performance Machine (PM) began manufacturing custom motorcycle parts out of a small shop in Paramount, CA in 1970″ and markets a product line that includes 15 unique wheel designs and matching components. From the images on PM’s website, the designs of the ’145, ’146, and ’147 patents correspond to its ”Luxe,” “Element,” and “Turbo” wheel designs:
According to the USPTO database, besides the ’145, ’146, and ’147 patents, PM has been granted 19 other U.S. patents, 18 of which are U.S. design patents, and 15 of which are for wheel designs.
Light bulb; Greenwave Reality, Inc.; U.S. Design Pat. No. D626,667
U.S. Design Patent No. D626,667, issued on November 2, 2010 to Greenwave Reality, Inc. of Irvine, CA, discloses a light bulb.
The ’667 design patent is for the ornamental design of a light bulb shown in the figures of the patent. In accordance with the convention for U.S. design patents, the portions of the light bulb shown in dashed lines (e.g., the screw threads at the bottom and the “g” logo at the top) are not part of the claimed design. However, the “wiffle-ball” appearance of the light bulb is claimed since it is shown in solid lines.
According to its website, Greenwave Reality is a “global innovator in the emerging Home Energy Management market” and provides “an affordable, easy-to-use, standards-based platform” that facilitates energy conservation by monitoring and controlling appliances and intelligent LED lighting. Greenwave’s platform includes single-port or multiple-port “PowerNodes” into which appliances are plugged in to receive their power. The “PowerNodes” communicate wirelessly to gateways that collect information on energy consumption by each connected appliance. An interactive display is provided to allow the consumer to monitor and control their energy usage wirelessly.
The company’s website also shows their upcoming intelligent LED lighting solution (the bulbs looking very similar to that of the ’667 design patent) which is touted as being affordable and reducing “energy consumption by up to 80% over incandescent bulbs with no compromise in light quality.” The LED bulbs can also be controlled using Greenwave’s energy management platform, allowing consumers to control their lights from any PC or smartphone.
According to the USPTO database, Greenwave Reality owns two U.S. design patents: the ’667 design patent and U.S. Design Patent No. D627,087, issued on November 9, 2010, for another light bulb design.
Automobile exterior design: US Design Pat. No. D612,768
U.S. Design Patent No. D612,768 issued on March 30, 2010 to Fisker Automotive, Inc. of Irvine CA, discloses a design for an automotive exterior.
The patent includes a number of figures which show the exterior design for an automobile in various views and perspectives. The design appears to be that of the 2010 Fisker Karma, which the company touts as “the world’s first luxury plug-in hybrid electric vehicle.” Fisker Automotive is a joint venture partnership between Fisker Coachbuild, LLC and Quantum Fuel Systems Technologies Worldwide, Inc. According to the company’s website, Fisker Coachbuild provides design services while Quantum provides the technological advances. The company’s website describes the Karma technology as being “cutting-edge plug-in hybrid technology” in which “a small gasoline engine [] turns the generator, which charges the lithium ion battery pack, powering the electric motor and turning the rear wheels.”
A search of the USPTO database for “Fisker” finds the ’768 design patent as the sole U.S. patent issued to Fisker Automotive to date. A search for “Quantum Fuel” finds four U.S. patents which have issued since 2003, directed to hydrogen storage systems, gas storage tanks, etc. From this brief search, I didn’t see an issued U.S. patent or U.S. published patent application that appeared to be directed to the technology of the Karma as described on the company’s website.
The ’768 design patent provides a good opportunity to discuss the difference between “utility patents” and “design patents.” All the patents previously discussed in the OC TechInnovation™ blog are utility patents. Such patents protect the technologically useful or functional aspects of an invention, including the particular features which provide the invention’s improved performance, reliability, cost of manufacturing, etc. In a utility patent, the scope of protection is defined by the one or more claims at the end of the patent, which generally describe the invention in terms of its features. The figures of a utility patent only serve to help interpret the claims (e.g., by providing examples of the invention and/or its features).
However, design patents, such as the ’768 design patent, differ significantly from utility patents. While a utility patent protects the functional aspects of an invention, a design patent only protects the ornamental, or non-functional, appearance of the design. For example, the ’768 patent only provides protection for the appearance of the exterior design (e.g., its shape, configuration, surface ornamentation), not for any functional aspects. Since the design patent’s protection is limited to ornamental aspects, the figures of the design patent are paramount in determining the scope of protection. Instead of relying on the claim language to define the invention as does a utility patent, the design patent includes a single claim which claims protection for the design “as shown and described” in the figures.
In general, an article of manufacture may possess both functional and ornamental characteristics, so both utility and design patent protection may be available. A design patent only has a maximum term of 14 years from the date of issuance, while a utility patent has a maximum term of 20 years from the earliest priority date.
While generally the costs and time involved in obtaining a U.S. design patent are significantly less than for obtaining a U.S. utility patent, the scope of protection provided by a design patent is generally considered to be more narrow than that of a utility patent. Relatively small changes of the ornamental appearance of a design can be enough to avoid infringement of a design patent. In contrast, more substantial changes of the functional aspects of an invention (e.g., removing one or more features listed in the claims) are generally needed to avoid infringement of a utility patent.
Follow me on Twitter
