Appeal No. 97-2313
Application 29/024,479
second paragraph, as being indefinite.
We determine that the metes and bounds of the claimed
design are indeterminate. As earlier articulated, supra, the
depicted design, as originally filed, was expressly set forth
as portraying a “SHOE WITH SPRING, i.e., the entirety of a
shoe’s appearance as depicted in the drawing. Accordingly, the
now claimed “PERIPHERY” design of a spring shoe is ambiguous
in
meaning when considered with the depiction in the original
drawing, as explained earlier in this opinion, the content of
which discussion is incorporated herein. For the reason that
we cannot fairly ascertain the design now being claimed, the
design
claim on appeal is appropriately determined to be indefinite
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
In summary, this panel of the board has:
reversed the rejection of the design claim under 35
U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Weber in view of Miller,
12
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007