How Should Practitioners Think About Design Patent Obviousness After LKQ?

Design patent obviousness became a more active practice issue after LKQ. Practitioners now need to be more deliberate about how they search, compare, and explain design references.

The key work remains visual, but the analysis is not just "these look similar."

Search by Visual Features

Design search should identify the visual features that create the claimed overall appearance:

• shape
• contour
• surface treatment
• proportions
• ornamentation
• broken-line environment
• relative placement
• contrast and patterning

Keyword search alone is weak for designs. Classification, assignee, product category, image review, and related utility patents can all help.

Preserve Comparison Views

A useful design obviousness review needs visual comparisons. Save front, side, perspective, and relevant partial views. Note which features are shared and which create a different overall impression.

Patent Bear is primarily a utility-patent workspace today, but its figure-focused reading model reflects the same principle: visual evidence needs to stay close to the analysis.

Be Careful With Primary Reference Framing

After LKQ, practitioners should still explain why a reference is the right starting point and how any secondary references fit the visual modification. Avoid conclusory combinations.

Draft and Prosecute With Later Review in Mind

Design applications should clearly present what is claimed and what is environment. Broken lines, figure consistency, and title/description choices can all matter later.

Track USPTO Guidance

The USPTO issued design obviousness examination instructions after LKQ. Practitioners should review the official USPTO design obviousness guidance when handling current design prosecution.

Design obviousness is still about the visual impression, but the search and explanation need to be more disciplined.