Appeal No. 96-4010
Application 29/021,122
between the row units of a combine header and serves the purpose
of minimizing corn ear loss by blocking the ears of corn if they
bounce out of the gathering chains or auger. On page 2 of the
first Office action (Paper No. 5, mailed March 10, 1995), the
examiner has made the determination that the two embodiments seen
in the present application "present overall appearances that are
not distinct from one another" and that the two embodiments thus
"comprise a single inventive concept." On the record before us,
it does not appear that appellant has traversed this
determination. Accordingly, the two embodiments have been
retained and examined in this single application.
There are no prior art references relied upon by the
examiner in the rejection before us on appeal. Instead, the
examiner has asserted that appellant's design does not meet
the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 171.
The appealed design claim stands rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 171 as "lacking ornamentality." More particularly,
it is the examiner's position that
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007