The Intellectual Property Law Server

Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register.
Oct 20th, 2020, 10:56am

Forums Forums Help Help Search Search Members Members Calendar Calendar Login Login Register Register
   Intellectual Property Forums
  
  
I have an Invention ... Now What?
(Moderators: Forum Admin, JimIvey, JSonnabend)
   Patent Drawings
« Previous topic | Next topic »
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7  Reply Reply Send Topic Send Topic Print Print
   Author  Topic: Patent Drawings  (Read 5792 times)
gregm170
Newbie
*




   
WWW Email

Posts: 49
Re: Patent Drawings
« Reply #15 on: Sep 17th, 2005, 3:12am »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

When doing the spec and the drawings, I often label similar elements with letter and numbers (i.e. 10a, 10b, etc.).  My question is whether or not anyone has had problems with this in US or foreign filings.  I have not, but some attorneys I have done work for swear up and down that its inappropriate.    
 
Also, has anyone had any problems with lead lines.  For example, the MPEP states that a floating arrow signifies a section and a lead line touching an element signifies a surface.  I've seen attorneys ignore this convention and they seem to get away with it on a regular basis.  It seems like this convention is not strictly enforced.    
 
Thanks in advance.    
 
Greg L. Martinez  
SolidStateIP www.solidstateip.com
IP Logged

Greg L. Martinez
SolidStateIP
www.solidstateip.com
www.solidstatepatents.com
gregm170
Newbie
*




   
WWW Email

Posts: 49
Re: Patent Drawings
« Reply #16 on: Sep 17th, 2005, 3:13am »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

When doing the spec and the drawings, I often label similar elements with letter and numbers (i.e. 10a, 10b, etc.).  My question is whether or not anyone has had problems with this in US or foreign filings.  I have not, but some attorneys I have done work for swear up and down that its inappropriate.    
 
Also, has anyone had any problems with lead lines.  For example, the MPEP states that a floating arrow signifies a section and a lead line touching an element signifies a surface.  I've seen attorneys ignore this convention and they seem to get away with it on a regular basis.  It seems like this convention is not strictly enforced.    
 
Thanks in advance.    
 
Greg L. Martinez  
SolidStateIP www.solidstateip.com
IP Logged

Greg L. Martinez
SolidStateIP
www.solidstateip.com
www.solidstatepatents.com
Isaac
Senior Member
****




   


Posts: 3472
Re: Patent Drawings
« Reply #17 on: Sep 17th, 2005, 6:22am »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

There is a document called "Guide for the Preparation of Patent Drawings" which is published by the GPO.  It goes into these questions and others in detail with examples.
 
I don't know if the reference is still available from the government, but the last time I googled for it, so downloadable copies turned up.  Get the most recent edition you can find.
 
I don't know if any reason why 10a, 10b, would be considered inappropriate or
undesirable in a US case.
 
One reason why people get away with informalities is that the
PTO does not use draftspeople to review drawings anymore.  Normally
the only pre-examination objections you will get are for improper
margins.  Sometimes that problem is caused by the person scanning your
drawings.
 
Many examiners won't spend much time reviewing/objecting to drawings
unless the problems are glaring or create problems for them in
understanding your application.  There is not much training on the
detailed concerns with drawings anyway.
 
Lead lines are supposed to touch a part.  A floating arrow has
several possible uses including pointing to a whole object or section
when you are also using lead lines to touch a part of the same
object.  I really would not be persuaded to ignore a rule because
your peers are getting away with it.  Getting the drawings done
right may matter to your clients at an important point such as
during litigation.
IP Logged

Isaac
JimIvey
Moderator
Senior Member
*****




  jamesdivey  
WWW

Posts: 2584
Re: Patent Drawings
« Reply #18 on: Sep 17th, 2005, 11:51am »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

I'll admit (here in front of God and everybody) that I may be one of those who ignored the leadline issue.  However, my defense is that my specifications, in describing what the leadlines point to, are clear.
 
When it doubt, spell it out (in the spec).
 
It's good that you recognize potential ambiguity and/or vagueness.  Be sure to resolve those ambiguities and/or vaguenesses in the spec.
 
Re drawings generally, they're not even absolutely required -- only when "helpful" as I recall.  I'm inclined to opine that insufficiency of a drawing should not be sufficient to overcome any presumption of validity of an issued patent.  But I won't go that far today.  And, outright contradiction of the spec (or an introduction of ambiguity in the drawings not already present in the spec) might be a different story.
 
Regards.
IP Logged

--
James D. Ivey
Law Offices of James D. Ivey
http://www.iveylaw.com
gregm170
Newbie
*




   
WWW Email

Posts: 49
Re: Patent Drawings
« Reply #19 on: Sep 18th, 2005, 3:13am »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

Ooops.  I'm not sure why I have multiple posts.   Huh Sorry about that.  It's even annoying to me.  
 
Thanks for they answers.  I think most of the problems I hear about are just personal preferences by different people and don't actually matter.  I've noticed in doing work for different attorneys that each has his own way of doing something and if you do it differently, then it must be wrong.  
 
To me its just different, but not necessarily wrong.  Maybe if you do the same thing long enough, you begin the think that its the right way of doing it.  
 
Greg L. Martinez
SolidStateIP www.solidstateip.com
IP Logged

Greg L. Martinez
SolidStateIP
www.solidstateip.com
www.solidstatepatents.com
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7  Reply Reply Send Topic Send Topic Print Print

« Previous topic | Next topic »
Powered by YaBB 1 Gold - SP 1.3.2!
Forum software copyright 2000-2004 Yet another Bulletin Board