Ex Parte LINCOLN - Page 3




            Appeal No. 2002-0494                                                          Page 3              
            Application No. 29/102,729                                                                        


                   The design claim stands rejected as follows:                                               
            (1) under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the description             
            requirement thereof inasmuch as the disclosure of this reissue application directed to            
            two additional embodiments shown in Figures 8-202 introduces new matter not                       
            supported by the disclosure of U.S. Patent No. Des. 378,692 as originally filed;                  
            (2) under 35 U.S.C. § 251 as based upon new matter added to the patent by inclusion               
            of Figures 8-20 directed to two additional embodiments;                                           
            (3) under 35 U.S.C. § 251 since it is not for the same invention as that disclosed in the         
            original patent because of the inclusion of two additional design embodiments directed            
            to just the bow and stern for an aquatic board and an aquatic board of indeterminate              
            length;                                                                                           
            (4) under 35 U.S.C. § 171 as directed to more than a single patentably distinct design            
            by claiming both combination/subcombination subject matter for an aquatic board in its            
            entirety as well as a separate design embodiment directed to just bow and stern for an            
            aquatic board; and                                                                                
            (5) under 35 U.S.C. § 251 as lacking defect in the original application and lack of error         
            in obtaining the original patent since the original patent would not have been granted to         
            patentably distinct combination/subcombination designs under a single claim.                      


                   2 Figures 15 to 20 were added by the appellant to this reissue application in the response filed
            September 13, 2000 .                                                                              






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007