Appeal No. 98-1692
Application No. 07/715,145
“computer display” should constitute adequate support for that
which is now claimed.
We agree with the examiner [answer-page 5] that the mere
mention of a “computer display” could “mean a multiplicity of
visual representations--a three dimensional computer monitor,
a display on a photocopier, a display on a dashboard of an
automobile, a display on an automatic teller machine, a narrow
display screen, a large display screen, a circular screen, a
curved screen, etc.” Thus, there is no support for an icon
embodied in the article of manufacture now attempted to be
shown by appellants with broken lines. There is no evidence
that appellants had possession of the particular design, i.e.,
the merge icon embodied in a screen in the particular manner
shown by the amended drawings, at the time of filing the
application. For the reasons given by the examiner at pages
4-11 of the answer, which we adopt as our own, we will sustain
the rejection of the design claim under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph.
Particularly with regard to the Bright and Sheehan
declarations, we agree with the examiner that there is no
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007