Appeal No. 98-1693
Application D-07/343,182
that there was, indeed, adequate support for that which is now
claimed.
As an additional reason for sustaining this rejection, we
note that the evidence indicates that at the time of filing
the original application, appellants had no intention of
disclosing or claiming a touch video screen having a touch
video graphic icon for copy trim function, but, rather,
appellants were interested only in obtaining protection for
the design of the icon, itself. It was clearly the icon,
itself, for use with or on a video touch screen, which was of
interest. The video touch screen was never intended, in the
original disclosure, to form any part of the invention. The
originally disclosed and claimed design was clearly for the
icon, per se, and not for any embodiment of that icon in a
video touch screen as an article of manufacture. We find that
there clearly was no disclosure in the specification, as
originally filed, for the now claimed design (as depicted in
the amended drawings) for a touch video graphic icon for copy
trim function incorporated into a video touch screen as an
article of manufacture. Moreover, we note that the design
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007