Appeal No. 98-1906 Application D29/045,336 By way of background, this application was originally filed with seventeen (17) drawing figures depicting several patentably distinct embodiments of the ornamental design. In response to a restriction requirement (Paper No. 2), appellant elected (Paper No. 3) to prosecute the embodiment represented by original figures 1, 2, 2a, 3, 4, 15 and 16 in this application. Subsequently, new drawings comprising seven (7) drawing figures corresponding, respectively, to original figures 1, 2, 2a, 3, 4, 15 and 16 were submitted as an attachment to the reply brief (Paper No. 10) and approved for entry by the examiner (Paper No. 13). Accordingly, any reference in this opinion to appellant’s drawing figures is with respect to the new drawings attached to appellant’s reply brief.2 As seen in the application drawing figures, appellant’s 2At this juncture, the description of the drawing figures appearing in the specification does not correspond to the newly submitted and approved drawings. Upon return to this application to the examiner’s jurisdiction, the examiner should see to it that this deficiency is corrected. 2Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007