Guide: How to determine whether or not a design patent have distinct differences over the prior design?

Introduction:
Entrusted by the petitioner of request for invalidation, Linda Liu & Partners filed a request for invalidation of the design patent named “game console (magic musical game console)” (Patent No.: 201030159819.5). The Patent Reexamination Board of the State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO) held that: compared with the prior design, the disputed patent had basically the same overall shape, same shapes of main components and consistent positional relationships thereof. Side panels of the cube, where the operation panel of the disputed patent located, had the same design with the operation panel. Where the prior design already disclosed design of the operational panel, such distinguishing feature was not sufficient for having obvious effects on the overall visual effect of the game console. Other distinguishing features of the disputed patent over the prior design only occupied a small portion of the game console and were not sufficient for having obvious effects on the overall visual effect. Therefore, the disputed patent did not have distinct differences over the prior design. Finally, the Patent Reexamination Board announced that the disputed design patent was wholly invalid.

Highlight of the case:
We provided 15 various evidences in total including disclosure of publications (patent documentations and magazines), disclosure on Internet (web pages) and disclosure by use (shipping orders and receiving notes). In order to prove the authenticity of the aforementioned evidences, we provided a variety of documentary evidences, including library collection, notarization and authentication, and elaborated our arguments with various combinations of evidences. Finally, the Patent Reexamination Board supported our arguments.