Appeal No. 98-1691
Application No. 07/715,262
1. We find no error in our sustaining of the examiner’s
rejection under the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112.
Appellants argue that there was plenty of support for a
“computer display” since the claim and title of the originally
filed application stated that the design is for a “computer
display.” We do not dispute that there was adequate support
in the originally filed application for the term “computer
display.” The problem is that, as explained by the examiner,
and adopted by us at pages
5-6 of our decision, the mere mention of a “computer display”
by the originally filed application could entail any of a
myriad of things such as a 3-D computer display, a photocopier
display, a display on an automobile dashboard, an ATM display,
different shaped screens, etc. The instant claimed invention,
however, is for a design and, as such, is directed to a very
specific and particular article of manufacture.
There is no evidence of record that appellants had
possession of the particular design, i.e., the edit icon
embodied in a computer display in the particular manner shown
by the amended drawings, at the time of filing the
application.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007