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