Appeal No. 98-1691
Application No. 07/715,262
It may be true, as appellants point out, that a broken
line showing is for illustrative purposes only and forms no
part of the claimed invention. However, it would still
constitute new matter for the broken line to be added by
amendment since, prior to this amendment and at the time of
filing the application, the claimed design was for an icon and
now, through amendment for which there is no adequate support
in the originally filed application, appellants attempt to
change the design to one for the icon for use with a
particular computer display. Accordingly, we find no error in
our finding that there is no adequate support for the subject
matter (including the broken line depiction of a computer
display) now attempted to be claimed.
2. We did not mean to imply that we were applying an
“intent to claim” standard as per reissue issues and we regret
any misunderstanding by appellants on this issue. We merely
meant to point out, in sustaining the written description
rejection, that at the time of filing the application, there
was no evidence that appellants were in possession of a
computer display having an edit icon for computer display, as
is now attempted to be claimed, since no such computer display
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007