Appeal No. 98-1694
Application 07/715,261
display screen, a large display screen, a circular screen, a
curved screen, etc.” Thus, there is no support for an icon
embodied in the article of manufacture now attempted to be
shown by appellant with broken lines. There is no evidence
that appellant had possession of the particular design, i.e.,
the access control icon embodied in a screen in the particular
manner shown by the amended drawings, at the time of filing
the application. For the reasons given by the examiner at
pages 4-11 of the answer, which we adopt as our own, we will
sustain the rejection of the design claim under 35 U.S.C. §
112, first paragraph.
As an additional reason for sustaining this rejection, we
note that the evidence indicates that at the time of filing
the original application, appellant had no intention of
disclosing or claiming a computer display with an access
control icon, but, rather, appellant was interested only in
obtaining protection for the design of the icon, itself. We
note the title of the application, “Access Control Icon For a
Computer Display” [emphasis ours]. Thus, the display, itself,
and/or the icon’s relationship with such display appears to
have been of no interest to appellant. It was clearly the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007