The requester filed a request for invalidation of the Chinese design patent (hereinafter referred to as the “patent patent” with the patent name ZL201530307448.3 and the product name of the design using the design name “gas energy-saving cover”. The requester considered the design and the current patent of the patent involved. Compared with the combination of design or existing design features, there is no obvious difference. If it does not comply with the provisions of Article 23, paragraph 2 of the Patent Law, it should not be granted a Chinese patent right. Therefore, the Patent Reexamination Board is requested to declare the patent in question invalid. The specific reasons are as follows:

I. About evidence 1 (ie Annex 1). Evidence 1 is the Chinese design patent for the Chinese design patent (hereinafter referred to as “Evidence 1”) whose patent name is 201230538830.1, and the design name of the product is “Energy-saving stove plate”. The authorization announcement date is November 2013. On the 13th, it was earlier than the application date of the patent in question on August 13, 2015. At the same time, the existing design 1 product is an energy-saving stove hob, which is used to cover the energy-saving stove, and has the same purpose as the gas-saving energy-saving cover of the patented product. Therefore, the picture of the energy-saving stove plate disclosed in Evidence 1 can be used as an existing design.

Second, the patent involved and the evidence 1 are not significantly different.

Through the overall observation and comprehensive judgment, the average consumer can easily conclude that the design of the patent in question is similar to the existing design of Evidence 1.

2.1. The design of the patent involved is similar to the shape of the evidence 1 design, both of which include:

(1) consisting of a disc body, a mounting hole and a bracket integrally formed by the outer wall and the inner wall;

(2) The outer wall and the inner wall are gently connected, the outer wall is at a right angle to the horizontal plane, and the whole is rounded; the inner wall is contracted toward the center, and the whole body is formed into a bowl shape, and the bottom of the inner wall is formed with a diameter smaller than the circular diameter of the outer wall. Small round

(3) The mounting hole is arranged at the lower part of the disc body and penetrates the outer wall and the inner wall;

(4) The brackets are all three, evenly distributed on the upper part of the inner surface of the inner wall.

2.2. Although the design of the patent involved and the number of mounting holes designed by Evidence 1 are different, there are 8 installation holes for the patent involved, and 5 installation holes for the evidence 1. However, the subtle differences between these parts do not make the patents involved relatively. Unexpected visual effects in existing designs, the number is only increased or decreased. At the same time, the mounting holes only serve to fix the lower part of the stove. The number of mounting holes is determined by the number and position of the mounting holes of the stove. Restriction, therefore, the design of the patent in question does not differ significantly from the number of mounting holes designed by Evidence 1.

Therefore, the patent in question does not differ significantly from the evidence 1 and does not comply with the provisions of paragraph 2 of Article 23 of the Patent Law.

In summary, the requester believes that the design of the patent in question does not have a significant difference from the existing design and does not comply with the provisions of paragraph 2 of Article 23 of the Patent Law.

The review committee issued a decision on the invalidation request on September 5, 2016, announcing that all of its patents were invalid.