总之，该案给我们留下了太多的思考空间，只有期待CAFC做出更多的判决来回答这一切；相对于实用专利案件，美国外观设计案件少很多，因此对Egyptian Goddess的运用也许将是一个长期的过程。
【作者简介】
董红海，广东广和律师事务所律师、专利代理人。
【注释】498 F.3d 1354
Gorham Co. v. White, 81 U.S. 511 (1871).
董红海，《视野：中美外观设计专利侵权判断比较——基于美国外观设计案例的分析》载于《知识产权》2005年第4期
CAFC在Egyptian 满席判决中写道,“However, in a series of cases tracing their origins to Litton Systems, Inc. v. Whirlpool Corp., 728 F.2d 1423 (Fed. Cir. 1984), this court has held that proof of similarity under the ordinary observer test is not enough to establish design patent infringement. Rather, the court has stated that the accused design must also appropriate the novelty of the claimed design in order to be deemed infringing. ”
Sun Hill v. Easter，48 F.3d 1193; 33 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1925, 原文是“To consider the overall appearance of a design without regard to prior art would eviscerate the purpose of the "point of novelty" approach, which is to focus on those aspects of a design which render the design different from prior art designs.”
所谓“购物清单”方法，是指为了证明被告盗用了自己的新颖点，根据被告产品的特点，原告有针对性的列举自己专利的新颖点
EGYPTIAN GODDESS, INC., Plaintiff, v. SWISA, INC., et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. :03-CV-0594-N
未注明出处内容皆引自Egyptian Goddess满席判决，
在LAWMAN ARMOR v. WINNER INTERNATIONAL （Fed. Cir 2006）中，该合议庭拒绝原告的争辩理由，反对将已有设计要素的组合或者说设计本身作为一个单独的“新颖点”，并判决被告不侵权
韦恩·C·杰什科、陆准，《美国最高法院在KSR诉TELEFLEX案中的裁定对显而易见性判断的影响》，海啸两案知识产权研讨会论文集
