Drawing

37 CFR 1.152  Design drawings.

The design must be represented by a drawing that complies with the

requirements of

§

1.84

and must contain a sufficient number of views to

constitute a complete disclosure of the appearance of the design. Appropriate and

adequate surface shading should be used to show the character or contour of the

surfaces represented. Solid black surface shading is not permitted except when used

to represent the color black as well as color contrast. Broken lines may be used to

show visible environmental structure, but may not be used to show hidden planes and

surfaces that cannot be seen through opaque materials. Alternate positions of a

design component, illustrated by full and broken lines in the same view are not

permitted in a design drawing. Photographs and ink drawings are not permitted to be

combined as formal drawings in one application. Photographs submitted in lieu of ink

drawings in design patent applications must not disclose environmental structure but

must be limited to the design claimed for the article.

Every design patent application must include either a drawing or a

photograph of the claimed design. As the drawing or photograph constitutes the entire

visual disclosure of the claim, it is of utmost importance that the drawing or

photograph be clear and complete, and that nothing regarding the design sought to be

patented is left to conjecture.

When inconsistencies are found among the views, the examiner should

object to the drawings and request that the views be made consistent.

Ex parte

Asano,

201 USPQ 315, 317 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1978);

Hadco

Products, Inc. v. Lighting Corp. of America Inc.,

312 F. Supp. 1173, 1182,

165 USPQ 496, 503 (E.D. Pa. 1970),

vacated on other grounds,

462 F.2d

1265, 174 USPQ 358 (3d Cir. 1972). When the inconsistencies are of such magnitude that

the overall appearance of the design is unclear, the claim should be rejected under

35 U.S.C.

112(a)

and

e

Asano,

201 USPQ 315, 317 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1978);

Hadco

Products, Inc. v. Lighting Corp. of America Inc.,

312 F. Supp. 1173, 1182,

165 USPQ 496, 503 (E.D. Pa. 1970),

vacated on other grounds,

462 F.2d

1265, 174 USPQ 358 (3d Cir. 1972). When the inconsistencies are of such magnitude that

the overall appearance of the design is unclear, the claim should be rejected under

35 U.S.C.

112(a)

and

(b)

, (or for applications filed

prior to September 16, 2012,

pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112

, first and

second paragraphs), as nonenabling and indefinite. See

MPEP § 1504.04

,

subsection I.A.