Appeal No. 97-2313
Application 29/024,479
for the “Shoe With Spring”, while Figures 4 through 6 were
described as views of a second embodiment of the “Shoe With
Spring”. Figures 2 and 5 were specified as side views, with
the opposite side being a mirror image.
As earlier indicated, Figures 1 through 3 are now
described (Paper No. 6) as being views of a first embodiment
for the “SIDE, UPPER AND SOLE PERIPHERY OF A SPRING SHOE”,
while Figures 4 through 6 are now described as being views of
a second embodiment for the “SIDE, UPPER AND SOLE PERIPHERY OF
A SPRING SHOE”. 5
As is evident from the above drawing descriptions, the
same figures of drawing that originally were disclosed as
views of a design for a “SHOE WITH SPRING”, now are described
and claimed as portraying the design for “SIDE, UPPER AND SOLE
PERIPHERY OF A SPRING SHOE”, i.e., the now claimed design is
not for a SHOE WITH SPRING but for the SIDE, UPPER AND SOLE
The application file reveals that the amendments made by appellant5
were responsive to the examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first and
second paragraph (Paper No. 4)to the effect that the claimed design was not
fully disclosed; i.e., as explained by the examiner, for full disclosure top,
front, and bottom views would be required for each embodiment.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007