In this episode we give a basic introduction to patent drawings, what they need to show, and the basic drawing types that are commonly used in patent applications.
I like to share a common problem faced by newbies drafting the descriptions. It is about the Interpretation of a rule related to patent drawings : 37 C.F.R. 1.84 : (4) The same part of an invention appearing in more than one view of the drawing must always be designated by the same reference character, and the same reference character must never be used to designate different parts. Question : 1. Is the View and Drawing mentioned referring to one angle of looking at one particular embodiment drawing or does it mean any and every view for all drawings , views of all embodiments within the detailed description? 1. Some have interpreted the rule to mean that exactly the same part of a particular embodiment must be referenced using exactly the same reference number within the description for that particular embodiment. So, different numbers can be used to reference the same part with some differences in form in different embodiments. For example, one number range per embodiment. And I can find such granted patents. 2. Others , which appears to be the majority, interpreted it to mean the same part must be referred to using exactly the same reference number and by View it means views across all embodiments. There are also such granted patents . Where the rule is creating confusion: 1. It uses the word drawing. What is drawing ? One drawing ? If one drawing, it can mean just one embodiment. Or does it mean every drawing? If the word DrawingS is used, it could mean views of all embodiments. 2. What is meant by a View? A view of one embodiment or views across all embodiments? 3. I see the problem originates from the fact that English allows for different interpretations no matter how clearly it is written. And the Best Practices supersede possible alternative literally valid interpretations. So it depends ultimately on the judge and then the federal judge. Why is there no clarity?
This was useful but I was disappointed that I did not see your 3D popcorn stand model turned into a patent drawing. I specifically am wondering if that solid gray is acceptable for a flat surface, as depicted in your drawing.
My product is overmolded. How should it be drawn when parts are embedded and not visible? Is there a easier way other than cross -sectioning which does not fully depict my embedded parts?
There are specifications for each and every type of line. Patent code gets diabolical in the details sometimes. If you google your question, and look at lots of modern patent drawings, you'll be able to quickly figure out how you have to do your particular drawing. With some research, and some trial and error, you'll do fine. Wishing you the best of luck!
Is there a rule covering how reference numbers need to be narrated in the detailed description? I mean, is there a rule to follow where when describing the invention, reference numbers being mentioned must be mentioned in ascending order only? For eg. Can we describe in this way : Car 100 comprises an engine 120 and a carriage 110. Or is it that we must write it this way : Car 100 comprises a carriage 110 and an engine 120? Must the numbers be mentioned in ascending order only?
Related: My patent attorney used letters for features of individual parts. So If I need to point to 3 different things on a part #1 it would be labelled: 1a, 1b, 1c. But from my reading this is not a requirement. I don't think there is any rule about how letters + numbers must be mixed when identifying parts of your drawing.
Do we need to label what view, for example, top or first side view, each of the multiple views are if depicted under one figure sign? Can we retro include a view from different angle to existing figures without having to change all the figure numbers already narrated in the description?
@@InventorsQuickTips Thanks. But it seems there is a reason for labeling only even numbers. I am unable to find the reason for that. Majority of the patent drawings are using even numbers.
If you all haven't seen a documentary called... It's worse than you think... Bye revelations of Jesus Christ ministries... I suggest you do... All praise and glory to the most high Jesus Christ
