Appeal No. 97-2313
Application 29/024,479
PERIPHERY OF A SPRING SHOE. Thus, it readily appears to us
that a “PERIPHERY” design, a design different from the overall
design for a SHOE WITH SPRING shown in the original drawings,
is now being claimed. However, all parts of the drawing
Figures are in solid lines indicating, according to design
practice, that everything depicted is part of what is being
claimed. Thus, we conclude that the now claimed design is not
the design depicted in the drawing (design for a SHOE WITH
SPRING). 6
It follows from our above analysis that, as to the design
claim on appeal, appellant errs in arguing (revised brief,
page 8) and indicating that the now claimed invention is
directed to the overall appearance of a spring shoe with a
coiled conical
spring visible between the sole and heel (page 7, Paper No. 6)
and that the claimed invention is directed to an ornamental
design for a spring shoe having a coiled spring between the
The later claiming of a different design, e.g., a design encompassing6
only a portion of an originally disclosed overall design, raises a description
(new matter) issue, as explained in a new ground of rejection, infra.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007