The professors+ also argue again that KSR implicitly overruled In re Clay. I'm...not convinced.
They're citing parts of KSR that involved not only a utility patent claim but a combination patent. Design patent claims are REALLY different.
Okay, on to the professors+ brief.
Similar group of profs from the first round, now joined by some right-to-repair groups:
They continue to lean heavily on their "design patent exceptionalism" argument, with some attempt to rebut what I wrote here:
https://patentlyo.com/patent/2023/07/design-patent-exceptionalism.html
Discussion
There are also some really interesting open questions about the proper scope of design patent prior art (for § 102 and § 103) in the wake of #CurviSil. But this brief doesn't acknowledge or discuss those.