# MPEP § 1503.02: Drawing

> Federal · Agency guidance · In force

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/MPEP_S1503.02

## Section

- **Citation:** MPEP § 1503.02
- **Heading:** Drawing
- **Jurisdiction:** Federal
- **Kind:** Agency guidance
- **Status:** In force
- **Text as of:** August 14, 2026
- **Source:** Compiled text
- **Location:** USPTO MPEP / Chapter 1500 - Design Patents / MPEP § 1503.02

## Text

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.

## Nearby sections

- [MPEP § 1501 Statutes and Rules Applicable](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/MPEP_S1501.md)
- [MPEP § 1502 Definition of a Design](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/MPEP_S1502.md)
- [MPEP § 1502.01 Distinction Between Design and Utility Patents](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/MPEP_S1502.01.md)
- [MPEP § 1502.02 Design Patent Practitioner Bar](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/MPEP_S1502.02.md)
- [MPEP § 1503 Elements of a Design Patent Application Filed Under 35 U.S.C. chapter 16](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/MPEP_S1503.md)
- [MPEP § 1503.01 Specification](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/MPEP_S1503.01.md)
- [MPEP § 1503.02 Drawing](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/MPEP_S1503.02.md)
- [MPEP § 1504 Examination](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/MPEP_S1504.md)
- [MPEP § 1504.01 Statutory Subject Matter for Designs](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/MPEP_S1504.01.md)
- [MPEP § 1504.01(a) Computer-Generated Electronic Images](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/MPEP_S1504.01(a).md)
- [MPEP § 1504.01(b) Design Comprising Multiple Articles or Multiple Parts Embodied in a Single Article](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/MPEP_S1504.01(b).md)
- [MPEP § 1504.01(c) Lack of Ornamentality](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/MPEP_S1504.01(c).md)
- [MPEP § 1504.01(d) Simulation](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/MPEP_S1504.01(d).md)
- [MPEP § 1504.01(e) Offensive Subject Matter](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/MPEP_S1504.01(e).md)

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/MPEP_S1503.02. Check the current official text before relying on it. Not legal advice.