"A. The Current Misalignment In general, “it has been well established for over a century that the same test must be used for both infringement and anticipation.” Int’l Seaway Trading Corp. v. Walgreens Corp., 589 F.3d 1233, 1239 (Fed. Cir. 2009). That general principle stems from the old maxim of “‘[t]hat which infringes, if later, would anticipate, if earlier.’” Peters v. Active Mfg. Co., 129 U.S. 530, 537 (1889) (quoting Peters v. Active Mfg. Co., 21 F. 319, 321 (S.D. Ohio 1884)). That maxim urges the same analytical symmetry in the design-patent context, whether for infringement or validity, including novelty and nonobviousness. But that, unfortunately, is not the case for design-patent obviousness."
https://files.mastodon.social/media_attachments/files/111/002/784/656/194/102/original/88ae2c053be94ab2.jpg