Ex parte STROUGO - Page 2




                 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.                                                                                    
                                                                           2                                                                            





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007