Home › Forums › USPTO & PCT: Patent Office Drawing Objections And Our Input › USPTO: Breaking up Figures To Fit On Multiple Pages
June 4, 2015 at 12:37 pm #1037
From Gallagher’s Patent Drafting Office Notes dated 2/11/13:
If a figure needs to be broken into multiple pages, add an index figure, if needed for understanding of the arrangement of the entire figure. See Patent Office provided Example, in which the index figure is labeled FIG. 21. As shown in this example, to break up FIG. 21, the first page will contain FIG. 21A, the second page FIG. 21B, and so on if there are more figures. Make sure to use capital letters in the figure legends for the individual pages. Omit the index figure if the entire figure can be understood without it, as many clients will ask us to remove it anyhow. If there are more than 26 pages in a figure, the figures would be labeled according to this method: FIG. 21A-1, FIG. 21B-1 … FIG. 21Z-1, FIG. 21A-2, FIG. 21B-2 … FIG. 21Z-2, etc.
If the client asks if they have to amend the specification to reflect the changed figure numbers the answer is yes. Each figure according to a discussion with the patent office needs to be specifically identified, for example, FIG. 9A, FIG. 9B, etc. If the client objects, usually because they don’t want to amend the specification, tell them that as a practical matter, we have not heard of any objections concerning this. We think this is a rule that is not really enforced and technically, if the specification identifies FIG. 9 this by convention is also referring to FIG. 9A, FIG. 9B, etc.
The index figure can also be avoided if you show connections from one page to the next [Circled letters at end of lines common to two figures] so the entire figure can be understood and it is also clear how the various pages should be arranged based on the circled letters.
Comments on the use of CONT: As of 4/23/2014, we have received a specific objection to the use of the word CONT. so we will not use it. The only exceptions are if we are instructed to use it by the client, or a patent office review of informalities does not object to it.
- This topic was modified 2 years, 7 months ago by Caroline Muir.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.