Comparable combination of features of the same kind of product design

Publish Time:2017-11-28 Views:342

Preface

If a number of existing design products and patent products are used the same, belong to the same kind of product, and a number of existing design has the combination of enlightenment, can combine the existing design features.

The design for the general consumers more easily in the purchase and assembly process of attention to the site, a greater impact on the overall visual effect of the product.

YASF

In cases involving invalid decision 32470th, the patented product is a fire check valve. The patent involved is represented by six orthographic views and stereogram. The valve seat is approximately square, and the four angle smooth transition and four sides are provided with convex edge smooth transition. The left and right sides of the valve seat are provided with arc shaped bulges, and two slender screws are used for fixing. The pipe joint is a cylindrical short tube. The lower part of the valve seat is provided with a cylindrical rod. The valve is a circular arc. The rear guide cover includes two side plates and slanted back plates. The upper opening is greater than the lower opening and the opening is connected up and down.



The contrast design 1 is represented by two views, as shown in the diagram. The product consists of a valve seat, a tube section, a valve plate, and a rear fairing disposed behind the valve seat. The rear guide cover is the split structure, which consists of two guide sides and a back plate. The lower edge of the back plate is prominent on the two sides, which shows the open cover and the back plate can be movable. See design 1 in detail.

}$NZ{SSLLEMZ`{{{X7`N7LN.png

The contrast design 2 is represented by six orthographic views and a stereogram, as shown in the diagram. The product consists of seat, pipe, disc and connecting rod. The seat is approximately square, the four corners are smooth transition and four sides are equipped with the convex edge of the smooth transition. The center of the seat left and right sides of the two sides are both with circular arc protruding, and the two sides have a card spring for fixing. The pipe joint is a cylindrical short tube. The lower part of the valve seat is provided with a cylindrical rod. The valve is a circular arc. Detailed comparison is shown in design 2.

图片.png

The comparison design 3 is represented by the main view, left view, right view, top view, elevation view, and stereogram, as shown in the figure. The product consists of a valve seat, a tube section, a valve plate, and a rear fairing mounted on the rear side of the valve seat. The seat is approximately square, the four corners are smooth transition and four sides are equipped with the convex edge of the smooth transition. The center of the seat left and right sides of the two sides are both with circular arc protruding, and the two sides are set for fixed card spring. The pipe joint is a cylindrical short tube. After the dome is integrally formed, the upper opening closed lower, rear lines inclined curve. Detailed comparison is shown in design 3.

图片.png

For fire check valve products, they usually include pipe section, seat, disc and rear guide cover. Square seat and cylindrical pipe section are the usual design of this kind of products. The setting of connecting rod determines the opening and closing mode of the valve, and the design of connecting rod and guide cover is connected with the working principle of the disc. The rear guide cover is in the back of the seat, but the performance of the product is inseparable from the design of connecting rod, valve and rear guide cover. In the process of purchasing and assembling, the general consumers are more likely to focus on the design of these parts, so the design of these parts has a more significant impact on the overall visual effect of the product.

Patent involved almost equal to contrast design 2 and 1 combination

The applicant proposes to combine the rear fairing part in comparative design 1 with the whole comparative design 2. The combined design is not significantly different from the patent in question.

图片.png

The patent involved is compared with the design of 1,2 combination, there are still the following differences: the rear fairing part is different; The combined product rear shroud is a split design. The lower edge of the backplane protrudes from both sides of the board, and the back plate is movable. There is a big difference between the integrated fixed backplane and the patent involved. Connecting rod detail design is different; Different fixtures, respectively, jump ring and screw.

Rear shrouds and connecting rods in the design of such products located in the general consumer easier to notice the part. It has a significant impact on the overall visual effect of the product. The differences mentioned above involve many aspects. But also consumer easier to notice the part. It is enough to make the obvious difference between the patent in question and that of the comparative design 1 and 2 combination. The patent in question shall comply with the provisions of Paragraph 2 of Article 23 of the Patent Law.

Patent involved almost equal to contrast design 2 and 3 combination

The applicant proposes to combine the rear fairing part in comparative design 3 with the whole comparative design 2. The combined design is not significantly different from the patent in question.

图片.png

Compared with the design 3 of the rear fairing part and the involved patent, the difference is obvious. In addition to the difference of the rear fairing part, design comparison between patent involved and comparative design after 2,3 combination, there are also differences between connecting rods and fixtures. And these differences which consumer easier to notice. It is enough to make the obvious difference between the patent in question and that of the comparative design 2 and 3 combination. The patent in question shall comply with the provisions of Paragraph 2 of Article 23 of the Patent Law.

In summary, the evidence submitted by the claimant cant prove that the patent in question does not comply with the provisions of paragraphs 1 and 2 of article 23 of the patent law. The reason for invalid declaration is not valid. Maintain No. 201330360849.6 of the patent right of design is effective.

Attached:

Invalid decision No. 32470th

Variable-guided fire check valve

Design Name



Decision number

32470

Decision day

 

2017-06-08 00:00:00.0

Commission number

67108367

Priority date

No

Application (patent) number

201330360849.6

Application date

2013-07-25  00:00:00.0

Review applicant


Invalid requestor

Chongqing Jiang Chun Building Material Co., Ltd.

Authorization announcement day

2014-05-28 00:00:00.0

Declared announcement day


Patentee

Hangzhout 

Xiaomi Environmental Technology Co., Ltd.

The trial member

Li Xiaoling

Team leader

Zhang Ying

Participant

Ma Yan

International classification


Design classification No.

2301

Legal basis

Article 23, paragraph 1, of the Patent Law; Article 23, paragraph 2, of the Patent Law;

Decide points


This invalidation request relates to the design patent No. 201330360849.6 issued by the State Intellectual Property Office on May 28, 2014. The name of the product used for this design is "Variable-guided fire check valve". Its filing date is July 25, 2013, and the patentee is Hangzhou Xiaomi Environmental Technology Co., Ltd.

For the above design patents (hereinafter referred to as patents involved), Chongqing Jiang Chun Building Material Co., Ltd (Hereinafter called the petitioner). On January 24, 2017, a request for invalidation was filed from the Patent Reexamination Board. The reason is that the patent in question did not comply with the provisions of article 27, paragraph 2, article 23, paragraph 1, and article 23, paragraph 2 of the Patent Law. The evidence submitted is as follows:

Evidence 1: Patent No. 201220460708.1 Chinese utility model patents authorized notice text print

Evidence 2: Patent No. 201130182416.7 Chinese design patent licensing notice text print

Evidence 3: Patent No. 201030608541.5 Chinese design patent licensing notice text print

The petitioner think, evidence 1 to evidence 3 are open before the filing date of the patent in question. And with the patent belongs to the same type of product. And evidence 1 discloses the same section with the patent involved, the square valve seat, pipe joints and square valve seat connection. The difference is only in the difference of the rear fairing. The difference exists in the use of the site can not see. And belongs to the general attention can not be aware of the local nuances. Therefore, the patent in question and the evidence 1 are substantially the same or have no obvious difference. It doesnt comply with the provisions of article 23, paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Patent Law. The main difference between the evidence 3 and the patent involved is that the valve plate has a different shape and has no columnar connecting rod. And the rear fairing has no lower opening. The difference exists in the use of the site can not see. In the same way, the patent in question does not comply with the provisions of paragraphs 1 and 2 of article 23 of the Patent Law as compared with the evidence 3. Evidence 2 discloses the same pipe section and square valve seat as the patent involved. And discloses the spherical valve disc and the column connecting rod in the same position and the same shape as the patent involved. Evidence 3 in the back of the rear fairing on the structural characteristics and the above characteristics of evidence 2 combination. After the combination of the design of patents and patents compared with no significant difference. The patent in question did not comply with the provisions of paragraph 2 of article 23 of the Patent Law. In the same way, Evidence 1 in the back of the rear fairing on the structural characteristics and the above characteristics of evidence 2 combination. After the combination of the design of patents and patents compared with no significant difference. In addition, the projection of the patent end of the patent involved in each view does not correspond to each other. It can not clearly show that the product that is required to be protected by a design patent and it does not comply with the provisions of paragraph 2 of article 27 of the Patent Law.

Qualified by formal examination, the patent reexamination board accepted the above-mentioned invalidation request on March 03, 2017 and transferred a copy of the invalidation request and evidence to the patentee, inform them to reply within the specified period.

Patentee overdue reply.

The patent reexamination board shall set up a panel according to law, trial of the case. The panel issued an oral hearing to both parties on April 11, 2017, which is scheduled to be verbally heard on May 17, 2017.

Oral hearing held as scheduled, both parties entrusted agents attended the verbal hearing.

During the oral proceedings, the claimant explicitly waived the relevant invalidation reasoning for the individual comparison of the patent in question and the evidence 1. As well as grounds for invalidation of article 27, paragraph 2, of the Patent Law. The reason for the clear invalid declaration is that the patent in question does not comply with the provisions of paragraphs 1 and 2 of article 23 of the Patent Law as compared with the evidence 3. The patent involved in the case is compared with the combination of evidence 2 and evidence 3. There is no obvious difference between the combination of evidence 1 and evidence 2. It does not comply with the provisions of article 23, paragraph 2 of the Patent Law. The patentee has no objection to the authenticity and the open time of evidence 1-3. On the design comparison, the claimant insisted on written comments. And claim using the picture of evidence 1 are figures 7 and 12. The patentee believes that such products have less design improvement points. Of which square base, cylindrical pipe joints are the usual design of such products. The connecting rod, valve,air deflector design interrelated, and the work of such products are inseparable.

So far, the panel believes that the facts of the case have been clear and can be reviewed and decided.

Reasons for decision

1. Legal basis

In view of the petitioners hearing the case verbally clearly renounce article 27, paragraph 2 of the Patent Law for reasons of invalidation. Therefore, the grounds for invalidation were article 23, paragraphs 1 and 2, of the Patent Law.

Article 23, paragraph 1 of the Patent Law provides: Designs that grant patents should not belong to existing designs. No unit or individual has applied for the same design to the patent administration under the State Council before the date of filing and records the patent in the public notice after the date of filing.

Article 23, paragraph 2 of the Patent Law provides: There should be a clear distinction between a patented design and a combination of existing designs or existing design features.

2. Evidence Certified

Evidence 1, 2 and 3 are all Chinese patent documents, and the patentee has no objection to its authenticity. Upon verification, the panel validates its authenticity. Evidence 1 is published on March 6, 2013, evidence 2 is on November 23, 2011, and evidence 3 is on April 13, 2011, are all before the filing date of the patent involved (July 25, 2013). It can be used to evaluate whether the patent in question meets the requirements of paragraphs 1 and 2 of article 23 of the Patent Law.

3. About article 23, paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Patent Law

In view of the fact that the claimant explicitly handed over the verdict in the oral hearing to compare the appearance design of the patent in question and the evidence alone. Therefore, this decision is no longer a comment on the above comparison methods.

The product involved in the patent involved is a fire check valve. Evidence 1, 2 and 3 also disclose the design of a fire check valve product (hereinafter referred to as contrast design 1, 2 and 3). The product shown has the same purpose as the patent involved and belongs to the same kind of product.

The patent involved is represented by a six-sided orthographic projection and a perspective view. As shown, the product consists of a valve seat, a pipe section, a valve plate, a connecting rod, and a rear shroud provided on the rear side of the valve seat. Valve seat is approximately square, four corners of the smooth transition and four sides are provided with a smooth transition of the convex edge. The middle of the left and right sides of the valve seat are provided with arc-shaped bulges and two elongated screws are used for fixing. The pipe joint is a cylindrical short tube. A column connecting rod is arranged at the lower part of the valve seat. The valve is a circular arc. The rear fairing consists of two side plates and an inclined back plate. The upper opening is larger than the lower opening and the opening is communicated up and down. See the patent involved in the drawings.

Relative to contrast design 3

The contrast design 3 is represented by the main view, left view, right view, top view, top view and stereogram. As shown, the product consists of a valve seat, a tube section, a valve plate, and a rear fairing disposed at the rear of the valve seat. The valve seat is approximately square. The four corners are smooth and the four sides are provided with smooth transition convex edges. The left and right sides of the valve seat are provided with arc shaped bulges. Two sides are equipped with fixed circlip. The pipe joint is a cylindrical short tube. The rear fairing is formed integrally, the curve at the lower part of the upper opening is closed and the back line is inclined. See figure 3 for comparison design.

The patent involved is compared with the comparative design 3, the two main similarities are: It consists of a cylindrical tube, a square valve seat, a valve plate and a rear fairing. The main differences between the two are: The shape of the rear fairing is different. The rear guide cover of the patent involved opens up and down, and the rear line is straight. The back of the rear cover of the comparative design 3 is inclined curve, the upper part is open and the lower part is closed. There is a cylindrical connecting rod below the seat of the patent involved. The comparative design 3 has not shown. Patent involved use screws to be fixed. The fixing device of the comparative design 3 is a circlip.

The panel think: For fire check valve products, they usually include pipe joints, seat, valve plate and rear shroud, square seat and cylindrical pipe joints are the usual design of such products. The setting of the connecting rod determines the opening and closing of the valve plate. The design of the connecting rod and the rear fairing is related to the working principle of the valve plate. Although the rear fairing is on the back of the valve seat. However, the performance of such products is inseparable from the design of the connecting rod, the valve plate and the rear fairing. In the process of purchasing and assembling, the general consumers are more likely to pay attention to the design of these parts. So the design of these parts has a more significant impact on the overall visual effect of the product. Through the above comparison, we can see that patent involved and comparative design 3 have a big difference in the design of the connecting rod and the rear fairing. These differences have a greater impact on the overall visual performance of the product, leading to patent cases and contrast design 3 are not essentially the same, and there are obvious differences. Compared with the comparative design 3, the patent involved in the case conforms to the provisions of paragraphs 1 and 2 of article 23 of the Patent Law.

Relative to the contrast design 2 and 1 combination

The contrast design 2 is represented by six orthographic views and a stereogram, as shown in the diagram. Products consist of the seat, pipe joints, valves, connecting rods. The valve seat is approximately square. The four corners are smooth and the four sides are provided with smooth transition convex edges. The left and right sides and the middle of the seat are provided with arc shaped bulges, and both sides are provided with clamping springs for fixing. The pipe joint is a cylindrical short tube. A column connecting rod is arranged at the lower part of the valve seat. The valve is a circular arc. See contrast design 2 with photos.

The contrast design 1 is represented by two views, as shown in the diagram. The products consist of a valve seat, a tube section, a valve plate, and a rear fairing disposed at the rear of the valve seat. The rear fairing is a split structure, which is composed of two guiding plates and one backboard. The lower edge of the back plate protrudes from the two sides of the backboard, and presents a hood like structure with the upper and lower openings. The back plate can move. See contrast design 1 with photos.

The petitioner claims that the rear fairing part of the contrast design 1 is integrated with the contrast design 2 as a whole. There is no obvious difference between the design after the combination and the patent involved.

Compared with the comparative design 1,2 combination of patents, there are still the following differences:Different rear guides:The product rear fairing is split type design. The lower edge of the backboard protrudes from the two side plates, and the back plate is movable. There is a big difference between the integrated fixed backplane and the patent involved. Connecting rod detail design is different. The fixing device is different, and the clamping spring and the screw are respectively.

As mentioned in part (1) of the preceding paragraph, the design of the rear fairing and the connecting rod is in the position which is easy to be noticed by the general consumers in this kind of products. And it has a significant influence on the overall visual effect of the products. The above differences involve many aspects, and are located in places where the average consumer is easy to observe. It is enough to make the obvious difference between the patent in question and that of the comparative design 1 and 2 combination. The patent involved in the case is in accordance with the provisions of the paragraph 2 of article 23 of the Patent Law.

Relative to the contrast design 2 and 3 combination

The comparison design 2, 3 is as described above.

The petitioner claims that the rear fairing part of the contrast design 3 is integrated with the contrast design 2 as a whole. There is no obvious difference between the design after the combination and the patent involved.

As mentioned in part (1) of the preceding paragraph, the contrast design 3 of the fairing and the patent is obvious different. In addition to the difference between the deflector and the patented design, the difference between the connecting rod and the fixing device is also found in the design of the combination of the patented 2,3 and the comparison design. The above differences involve many aspects, and are located in places where the average consumer is easy to observe. It is enough to make the obvious difference between the patent in question and that of the comparative design 2 and 3 combination. The patent involved in the case is in accordance with the provisions of the paragraph 2 of article 23 of the Patent Law.

In summary, the evidence submitted by the petitioner can not prove that the patent involved does not conform to the provisions of the paragraph 1 and 2 of article 23 of the patent law, and the reason for the invalidation of the patent does not hold.

Decision

Maintaining the patent right of design No. 201330360849.6 is effective.

If the parties are dissatisfied with this decision, they may file a lawsuit with the Beijing Intellectual Property Court within three months from the date of receipt of this decision in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 2 of article 46 of the patent law. According to the provisions of this paragraph, one party after the prosecution, the other party as the third party to participate in the proceedings.