Appeal No. 97-2313
Application 29/024,479
reasons, that the respective rejections of appellant’s
indefinite design claim under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been
procedurally reversed.
NEW GROUNDS OF REJECTION
Under the authority of 37 CFR 1.196(b), this panel of the
board introduces the following new grounds of rejection.
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph
The design claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, as lacking descriptive support in the original
disclosure.
As originally filed, a “SHOE WITH SPRING” was described
and shown. The present, amended claim, alters the design for
which patent protection was originally sought to a “PERIPHERY”
design. A design, for example, the originally disclosed
design, is a whole unto itself and is assessed in its
entirety. The “PERIPHERY” design now claimed was not the
originally described and claimed design, but clearly only a
not show an overall triangular support appearance which looks like the
triangular support appearance of the design application with a conical spring.
However, we note that the Gelli clog design displays an overall triangular
support appearance encompassing the aesthetic form of a helical spring.
10
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007