Appeal No. 98-1693
Application D-07/343,182
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 touch video graphic icon for copy trim function embodied
in a touch video 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 Herceg declaration, we
agree with the examiner that there is no dispute that the icon
which is the subject of the claimed design is for use on a
computer-related display or touch video display. We also
agree with declarant that touch video screens are well known.
The question before us, however, is whether there was adequate
support in the original disclosure for that which is now
claimed, i.e., the icon originally shown in the drawings
surrounded by a broken line purporting to depict a touch video
screen. We find nothing in the declaration that convinces us
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007