 |
| Design patent on right issued 94 years after patent on left by adding
one (1)
addition side to a padlock shackle. See all of 1,016,455 at google. comments: Tue, 02 Sep 2008 I have to admit that those shackles certainly seem very similar to me, but the threshold of "novelty" for design patents is pretty low. There's no functional difference between a lock with a round shackle and one with an octagonal cross-section - but functional difference is exactly what design patents are NOT intended to protect. Clearly, a round shackle is different visually from one with eight sides, and perhaps that's a difference which means something to a padlock manufacturer. Or, more likely, they hope that it will distinguish their goods from their competitors', so that a consumer will see a lock with an eight-sided shackle hanging on a rack with all the round-shackled locks and say, "I like that company's locks, so I'll buy that one." It's not unlike the differences in design of keys for locks - the punched rectangular top doesn't work any better than a round one, but it makes it instantly recognizable as a Kwickset. (Design patent and trade dress/product configuration protection kind of overlap, here) Design patents have their place in the general scheme of protection, but there's a reason why they're less expensive, shorter lived, and easier to get. They just cover a visual difference from what was done before, and for some people, that's enough.
comments: Thu, 04 Sep 2008 I believe you are in error, sir. If you
examine those patent drawings more closely, you’ll find that is a
heptagon shackle (7-sided), not an octagon. Thus being even
more obscure and difficult to manufacture.
Now that really is innovatively challenged. Obscurely yours, Tom Hortel Zenovate Ltd. Tom@Zenov8.com |
