`
`Amendments to the Drawings:
`
`The attached sheets of drawings includes changes to Figs. 1-7.
`
`These sheets, which includes Figs. 1-7, replace the original sheets
`
`including Figs. 1-7.
`
`In Figures 1-7,
`
`the scale of the drawings
`
`have been enlarged to provide clarity and conciseness to the
`
`figures.
`
`Attachment:
`
`Replacement Sheets
`
`Annotated Sheets Showing Changes
`
`
`
`Appl. No. 29/276,806 - Reply to Office Action of July 23, 2007
`
`REMARKS /ARGUMENTS
`
`In the specification,
`
`the paragraphs beginning at page 1
`
`have been amended to correct minor editorial problems. -
`In amended Figures 1-7,
`the scale of the drawings has been
`
`enlarged to provide clarity and conciseness to the figures as
`
`requested by the Examiner.
`
`The single Claim remains in this application.
`
`In response to the Office Action of July 23, 2007,
`
`Applicant requests re-examination and reconsideration of this
`
`application for patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 132.
`
`Rejections under 35 USC 112
`
`The claim stands rejected under 35 U.S.C.
`
`112,
`
`first and
`
`second paragraphs,
`
`as
`
`the Examiner
`
`states
`
`that
`
`the claimed
`
`invention is not described in such full, clear, concise and exact
`
`terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to make and use
`
`the same, and fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim
`
`the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
`
`The
`
`Examiner further states that due to the complex nature of
`
`the
`
`claimed design the scale of the drawings needs to be enlarged to
`
`eliminate the blurring of
`
`lines in the figures.
`
`The Examiner
`
`further states that it cannot be determined whether the surface of
`
`the design defines raised or recessed surfaces, and if so, what the
`
`spatial relationship is between those surfaces.
`6
`
`The Applicant
`
`
`
`
`
`Appl. No. 29/276,806 - Reply to Office Action of July 23, 2007
`
`respectfully traverses the Examiner’s position. However,
`
`in effort
`
`to promote compact prosecution,
`
`the Applicant’s representative is
`
`providing replacement drawings in a larger scale to provide clarity
`
`and conciseness to the figures as requested by the Examiner.
`
`It is
`
`therefore, believed that the Examiner will find the claim of the
`
`instant application in condition for allowance and requests that
`
`the rejection be removed.
`
`
`
`Appl. No. 29/276,806 - Reply to Office Actionof July 23, 2007
`
`SUMMARY
`
`In light of the foregoing remarks and amendment to the
`
`claims, it is respectfully submitted that the Examiner will now
`
`find the claims of the application allowable.
`
`Favorable
`
`reconsideration of the application is courteously requested.
`
`Should there be any remaining issues which can be resolved via
`
`an Examiner’s Amendment,
`
`the Examiner is urged to call the
`
`undersigned in order to expedite the prosecution of this
`
`application.
`
`The Commissioner for Patents is hereby authorized to charge
`
`any deficiency in any fees due with the filing of this paper or
`
`credit any overpayments in any fees paid on the filing to
`
`Deposit Account No. 13-0439.
`
`
`
`Registration #52 /686
`
`McHale & Slavin, P.A.
`2855 PGA Boulevard
`Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
`(561) 625-6575 (Voice)
`
`(561) 625-6572 (Fax)
`
`
`
`
`
`Appl. No. 29/276,806
`Reply to Office Action of July 23, 2007
`Annotated Sheet Showing Changes
`
`Fig. 1
`
`
`
`eaters epeeneePecent
`ao
`
`
`
`
`
`Appl. No. 29/276,806
`Reply to Office Action of July 23, 2007
`Annotated Sheet Showing Changes
`
`Fig. 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Appl. No. 29/276,806
`Reply to Office Action of July 23, 2007
`Annotated Sheet Showing Changes
`
`Fig. 5
`
`Fig. 6
`
`es
`
`
`Scale
`
`
`
`Appl. No. 29/276,806
`Reply to Office Action of July 23, 2007
`Annotated Sheet Showing Changes
`
`Fig. 7
`
`
`
`\X\\ \at »
`Ven
`
`\\\\\r
`
`Seale
`
`>“asA
`
`—
`“
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
