Patent Application
20170020214
The disclosed invention regards public occasions where a person dresses in “formal”, “semiformal”, or “business” attire that normally but not necessarily includes (1) a button-down shirt with a collar on whose front is mounted a tie or bowtie, and (2) a tuxedo, suit, or sportjacket that is often worn with said shirt and tie.
Bowties have a prominent if subtle place in our society. They are normal neckwear for tuxedos which are generally worn by classical musicians, waiters, attendees of formal dinner parties, grooms and ushers at weddings, and hosts and recipients at award ceremonies. A particularly entertaining and iconic use of this neckwear is the Playboy Enterprises logo of a rabbit sporting a bowtie; and as representatives of this logo “Playboy bunnies” wear bowties at nightclubs and resorts owned and operated by Playboy Enterprises. Less formally, this abbreviated neckwear has been associated with architects, lawyers, professors, high-school principals, bachelor English teachers, magicians, politicians, boxing referees, newspaper editors, country doctors, pediatricians (they often wear bowties so infants can't grab them the way they could neckties), and women in certain business venues who may wear slacks or skirted suits with buttoned blouses and bowties. Usually, wearing a bowtie confers upon the wearer an aura of charm, fascination, even elegance, while suggesting a carefree nature and an insouciant lack of concern for whatever may be happening around them.
Yet bowties are typically made of dark and dull fabrics that tend to look a little staid and unclever, and aside from generally being a “fashion thing” in certain limited venues they rarely have any symbolic or principled meaning beyond one's mere functionality. Further, the familiar “shoelace knots” are difficult to tie and can loosen or unravel, their fabrics can fray and lose their shape over time, moisture and mildew can damage them, and they need to be periodically washed. Each of these drawbacks is overcome by the disclosed invention. Moreover, its startling beauty, iconic novelty, and increased practicality could extend its venues of suitability far beyond those of the usual bowtie, all of which could render the disclosed invention as a signal improvement over the existing art.
But the most signal improvement of the disclosed invention over the existing art—one that previously was so nonobvious that no one else the world ever made the connection until the inventor spotted it—has to do with a conventional bowtie's characteristic shape: the way it has a knot in the center and wings on each side that widen vertically as they lengthen horizontally from the central knot, until the bowtie's outline assimilates the outline of a . . . butterfly! Certainly a few others have seen this relation—but this inventor improved this relation as no one has before by creating a bowtie whose frontal construction replicates every detail of outline, pattern, and coloration of a particular species of open-winged butterfly so precisely that the bowtie looks exactly like an actual specimen of the species to the naked eye. Suddenly what was previously nonobvious now makes people say, why of course! This is the essence of invention—seeing something new in something old—and this innovation enabled this inventor to stake a claim in that province of novelty and uniqueness that particularly and distinctly encompasses the subject matter of this bowtie invention: each embodiment is a photorealistic representation of a actual specific species of open-winged butterfly, one that appears in such precise detail that it looks exactly like an actual specimen to the naked eye—one that is likely to make an observer say, “Yikes, a Monarch butterfly has alighted on that fellow's collar!” Indeed, when these colorful insects have alighted in a state of repose, their opened wings have much the same shape as bowties—and how compatibly nice it is that butterflies are also charming, fascinating, even elegant, and their lively flights suggest a carefree nature and an insouciant lack of concern for whatever may be happening around them.
Hence it is entirely appropriate and of fascinating interest to the public to manufacture a bowtie that to “a person having ordinary skill in the art to which this subject matter pertains” its every detail of outline, pattern, and coloring would look exactly like the same markings appearing in an actual species of open-winged butterfly. It is the meticulous twinning of these two normally disparate images that defines the province of novelty and uniqueness that is particularly pointed out and distinctly claimed to be the subject matter of the disclosed invention.
Oppositely, regarding any others' attempts to “anticipate” the disclosed invention: if any bowtie whose representation of a butterfly is so vague, hazy, abstract, sketchy, fuzzy, dull, obscure, or otherwise unclear that it cannot be positively identified as a specific species of open-winged butterfly by “a person having ordinary skill in the art,” said representation exists wholly outside the province of novelty claimed by the disclosed invention. Sure, a certain indistinct image might or could possibly be a specific species of butterfly in the manner that any vague resemblance might or could be a specific species of butterfly, but if such an image is not actually a specific species of butterfly in a manner that can be identified by “a person having ordinary skill in the art”—then that image is so counterfeitingly unclear that it cannot possibly, by any insinuation of logic or intimation of verisimilitude, stake a claim within the province of novelty and uniqueness that is encompassed by the disclosed invention.
The novelty of the disclosed invention can be further narrowed to include only its frontal construction: what the invention looks like from the front or somewhat from the side. As such, what this inventor claims as the subject matter of the disclosed invention does not include how its connecting means attaches to its back or fastens to the wearer; nor how the invention's opened wings may possibly hide its connection to the collar behind; nor how the invention is packaged, displayed, maintained, or stored; nor how the invention may make the wearer more physically comfortable as do sunglasses, earmuffs, and other such outerwear.
Within the above constraints several common species of open-winged butterfly lend themselves well to being a particular embodiment of the disclosed invention: the Monarch, Swallowtail, and Buckeye butterflies, and the Luna and Polyphemus moths. And a number of tropical butterflies are so startlingly beautiful that they too would make alluring embodiments of the disclosed invention. If a species being considered as an embodiment of this invention is somewhat smaller than a normal bowtie, its embodiment can be enlarged to the size of a normal bowtie; and if a species is somewhat larger, its embodiment can be reduced to the size of a normal bowtie.
Regarding the preferred construction of the disclosed invention, the usual cloths or fabrics have several drawbacks. Bowties fabricated of these materials can droop and fray, they can rip and tear, they can be sullied by foods and beverages, they are susceptible to moisture and mildew damage, their patterns and colors can easily abrade and fade, and the woven texture of a cloth or fabric is generally not smooth enough to portray the kind of detail that is necessary to replicate a specific species of open-winged butterfly. For these reasons it can be said the disclosed invention should not be made of cloth, especially when a number of other materials would serve this purpose well.
Since the typical shapes, colors, and species of opened-winged moths closely coincide with those of open-winged butterflies, the province of novelty and uniqueness distinctly claimed by the disclosed invention also includes actual specific species of moth. Hence everywhere in this disclosure that the word “butterfly” appears, it means “moth” as well. Further, since butterflies and moths are taxonomically part of the class of insects in the order Lepidoptera, the disclosed invention can also be described as a photorealistic representation of an actual specific species of open-winged insect of the order Lepidoptera, which includes all butterflies and moths. Further still, since butterflies are taxonomically part of the class of insects of the suborder Rhopalocera, which includes only butterflies, of the order Lepidoptera, an embodiment of the disclosed invention that is a photorealistic representation of an actual specific species of open-winged butterfly can also be described as a photorealistic representation of an actual specific species of open-winged insect of the suborder Rhopalocera, which includes all butterflies. Similarly, since moths are taxonomically part of the class of insects of the suborder Heterocera, which includes only moths, of the order Lepidoptera, an embodiment of the disclosed invention that is a photorealistic representation of an actual specific species of open-winged moth can also be described as a photorealistic representation of an actual specific species of open-winged insect of the suborder Heterocera, which includes all moths.
As introduced above, the disclosed invention is a bowtie whose every embodiment is a photorealistic representation of an actual specific species of open-winged butterfly or moth. In every instance the embodiment's identity is determined by the species' name. If the embodiment replicates a Monarch butterfly, a storekeeper showing it to a customer would say this is a Monarch Butterfly Bowtie; if a Luna Moth, one would say this is a Luna Moth Bowtie, and so forth. This naming of each visual embodiment of the disclosed invention is signally important, because in our world of names this ordered system of taxonomy borrowed from science is the indicia or identifying label by which a buyer, wearer, or admirer of this device can quickly discern one embodiment from another. However, this indicia should not be affixed to a species' most alluring part, its front, as here it would mar its appearance as surely as affixing the word
This novel and unique invention is so obviously patentable that it has already received a patent: a United States Design Patent (U.S. D661,459 S) issued Jun. 12, 2012. When previous Examiner Karen E. Eldridge Powers compared the subject matter of the disclosed invention to that of the prior art filed in the USPTO archives, not once did she find that any prior art anticipated the disclosed invention. During my correspondence with Examiner Powers during these matters she urged me to apply for a utility patent for this invention, because she said a design patent covers only one embodiment of the invention while a utility patent covers every embodiment. In her Office Action Summary of Mar. 11, 2012, she elucidated the differences between the two patents as follows [to paraphrase]: “Design patent descriptions are conventionally short concise statements identifying the orientation of the view, as opposed to utility patents where the inventor's creation is defined by the specification and claims and the drawings are only secondary. Also a design patent protects only that which is shown, hence there is no description of ‘preferred embodiments’ and so on.” Her advice combined with her professionalism and knowledge indicated that she believed my invention merited receiving a utility patent, or she would not have urged me to apply for one.
As written by Examiner Powers above, in a utility patent it is the specification and claims that define the inventor's creation. Since the specification and claims of an invention describe its novelty, scope, utility, preferred construction, and relation to the prior art, a detailed description of these parts of the disclosed invention follows . . . .
Regarding the disclosed invention's novelty, this has been described.
Regarding the invention's scope, the disclosed invention is not a new idea but an improvement of an old one. An analogy is Edison's light bulb. Edison didn't invent the light bulb because it was already patented; he invented an improvement thereof: a brighter and longer-lasting filament. Similarly, the disclosed invention is not [from the dictionary definition of a bowtie] “A tie that ties in a bow”, as these have been around for centuries, but an improvement on a tie that ties in a bow: a bowtie that is a photorealistic representation of an actual specific species of open-winged butterfly. This characteristic—and only this—defines the province of novelty and uniqueness that is particularly pointed out and distinctly claimed to be the subject matter of the disclosed invention.
Regarding the disclosed invention's utility, this bowtie invention is more desirable, useful, and practical than previous bowties in a number of ways, as follows . . .
It is safe to say that no other bowtie ever invented offers all these several advantages to its wearer.
Regarding the disclosed invention's preferred construction, it would be easy to manufacture a bowtie that is a photorealistic representation of a specific species of open-winged butterfly, as detailed below. One method would be (1) to use a metal die or similar means to stamp a shape whose outline replicates every indent and projection appearing in the outline of a species of open-winged butterfly; then (2) to use paint, photo-reproduction or similar means to coat the frontal surface within this outline in a manner that reproduces every pattern and color appearing in the wings and central body region of said species of butterfly. A suitable material for this shape and surface would be copper sheet about 1/40 (0.25) inch thick. This material would be suitable for manufacturing the disclosed invention for the following reasons . . .
Especially with 10 and 11 above, I know first-hand that the disclosed invention can be simply and economically manufactured in a manner that is a photorealistic representation of an actual specific species of open-winged butterfly or moth. As for copper, all its desirable properties do not mean it is the only suitable material for manufacturing the disclosed invention, only that there is an existing, simple, economical, practical, and altogether feasible means of making it.
From the desirable properties listed above, one can deduce a number of preferred constructions of the disclosed invention, a bowtie that is a photorealistic representation of an actual specific species of open-winged butterfly, one that appears in such accurate detail that the representation looks exactly like the actual species to the naked eye, as follows . . . .
The disclosed invention must also have a connecting means on its back that enables it to be easily worn. While any such connecting means is not what the invention claims, to fully demonstrate its utility a feasible means of connecting it to a wearer should be disclosed. Two such means are (1) to glue, solder, or braze a metal connector to the back of said bowtie, or (2) to drill one or more holes through the central region of said bowtie and insert a wirelike connector through said holes; wherein in either instance said connector's rearmost part would detachably fasten to the collar or shirt behind. Regarding the prototypes I have made of the disclosed invention, to the back of each I have attached a small belt, like the ones existing on many bowties today, which the wearer buckles around one's neck. This connector works admirably well. Another connector I have made involved bending a large paper clip into the shape of an M, then gluing with metal epoxy glue the M's outer legs to the back of the copper bowtie, then bending the inner V back about a quarter inch in a manner that enables the wearer to quickly slip the bowtie over the front of one's collar. This connector would cost only pennies to make and could be easily mass-produced. In these and certainly other ways, the disclosed invention's back can be fitted with a connecting means that enables its utility admirably well.
To determine the patentability of the disclosed invention, this inventor exhaustively searched 150 U.S. Patents for bowties. The patents' numbers and cited Class/Subclasses appear on page 11 of this disclosure. Most of these patents' classes and subclasses are organized in the USPTO's Manual of Classification as follows . . .
/148 •• Knot structure
/151 •••• Bow type: Devices comprising made-up structures of the bow type
/154 •••• Bow type: Devices for bow ties
/155 •• Band structure
In my search of the prior art, I reached the same conclusion as did Examiner Karen E. Eldridge Powers when she examined the prior art: I found not one prior invention whose subject matter anticipated that of the disclosed invention. The subject matter of the prior art tended to be some kind of “knot structure”, “mounting means”, “connective means”, “band structure”, “supporting device”, or “drooping prevention”—all of which teach away from the only subject matter of the disclosed invention: a photorealistic representation of an actual specific species of open-winged butterfly, one that appears in such accurate detail that the representation looks exactly like the actual species of open-winged butterfly to the naked eye. Also every bowtie in the prior art was made of cloth or fabric, which as detailed earlier above is an inferior material for making the disclosed invention.
Another property of an invention that has been used to determine its patentability is its purpose. As a sample, in Nuvasive vs. Warsaw Orthopedic (Case IPR2013-00396, PTAB, Dec. 17, 2014), the plaintiff (Nuvasive) argued that a spinal implant patent owned by Warsaw was invalid because three prior spinal implant patents could be combined in a manner that anticipated Warsaw's patent.
Warsaw argued that a person of skill could not be expected to combine the three prior patents because they used different means to achieve the same result. However, the Court ruled in favor of Nuvasive because it decreed that the three prior patents, though different, were used for the same purpose as Warsaw's patent. Oppositely, by this verdict's logic, if a prior art and pending art have different purposes, the prior art cannot be cited as anticipating the pending art.
However, despite the differences in subject matter and purpose as described above, a hopefully former examiner (Richale Quinn) of the disclosed invention's original application for a utility patent cited two patents in the prior art as anticipating the disclosed invention—when Examiner Karen E. Eldridge Powers cited the same two patents as not anticipating the disclosed invention.
One of these patents was granted to Alfred Krivda (U.S. Pat. No. 3,649,965) on Mar. 21, 1972. In Examiner Quinn's Second Office Action of Sep. 18, 2013, §5, page 3, she began her citing of Krivda's prior art by quoting pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 (a) as follows . . .
Yet Examiner Quinn said, “The device of Krivda discloses a bowtie that looks like a butterfly (
From col 1, line 46 to col 2, line 15, his specification says his invention has three essential parts . . .
All the above is true no matter how similarly the inventions may look from a certain direction. But even from the front these two inventions do not look alike, as further scrutiny reveals. In col 2, lines 16-18, of Krivda's specification he describes the frontal design of his necktie as follows: “A pair of wings 29 secured to the body B are illustrated in the form of a butterfly but may have any desired form including costume or genuine jewelry.” Here Krivda's any desired form, which he indicates can be almost anything imaginable in addition to that of a butterfly, teaches away from Butler's only possible form: “a photorealistic representation of an actual specific species of open-winged butterfly.” Here we have compared something general that is irrelevant to the case to something specific that is essential to the case.
But the clincher here is Krivda's claims. Again, let us return to Examiner Powers' Office Action of Mar. 13, 2012, where she said . . .
The inventor's creation is defined by the specification and claims.
So how do Krivda's claims define his invention? Here they are en toto
What is claimed is:
1. A necktie comprising a body member, a flexible spring wire secured intermediate its opposite ends to said body member, means on said wire for detachably securing said wire and said body member to the collar of a shirt, a second body positioned to overlie said body member and means detachably securing said second body to said body member including a pair of snap sockets integrally formed in said body member and a pair of male snap members secured to said second body for detachable engagement with said snap sockets.
2. A device as claimed in claim 1 wherein the means for securing said wire to the collar of a shirt includes a pair of oppositely disposed downwardly extending loops adapted to engage behind the neckband of the shirt.
3. A device as claimed in claim 1 wherein a pair of oppositely disposed arms are integrally formed on said wire for extending beneath the collar tabs of the collar.
As one can plainly see, every word of Krivda's claims defines how his necktie connector—its body member, snaps, and wires—detachably secures a necktie to the shirt behind—and not one word of these claims says or suggests a thing about what any part of this connector looks like from the front. Compare this to the disclosed invention's claims. Its initial claim defines in great detail only the frontal construction of the disclosed invention and says not one word about how any part of the invention detachably secures to the shirt behind—and every subsequent claim copends within these initial confines. As important as an invention's specifications are, anyone who knows a thing about patent law knows it is an invention's claims that define the province of novelty that is particularly pointed out and distinctly claimed to be the subject matter of the invention—that ultimately, in any court of patent law, a just verdict in such matters rests on a reading of the invention's claims.
In summary, as has been articulately detailed above, it should be obvious to anyone “having ordinary skill in the art” that the provinces of novelty and uniqueness that are distinctly claimed by the inventions of Krivda and Butler—a connector on the back of a necktie and a butterfly on the front of a bowtie—are obviously different, that the subject matter of Krivda's invention is different from the subject matter of Butler's invention no matter what their fronts may look like, and that every part of Krivda's subject matter teaches away from every part of Butler's subject matter. All this was plainly obvious to Examiner Powers. Why wasn't it so to Examiner Quinn—especially when she quoted subject matter scripture from applicable patent law?
However, in Examiner Quinn's Office Action of Sep. 18, 2013, she gave a second reason for citing Krivda's drawing as anticipating the disclosed invention that further erases her case. On page 4, line 4, she stated, referring to Krivda's
As further proof that tightens the screw of conclusion, the Internet Free Dictionary defines photorealism as “a style of painting depicting scenes in meticulously realistic detail, in emulation of photography,” and several standard dictionaries define photorealism as using paint, photo-reproduction, or similar means to depict an object so accurately that it looks like a photograph. As such, Krivda's sketchy caricature could not possibly be a photorealistic representation of anything. Thus Examiner Quinn's stating that Krivda's figure “is a photorealistic representation of a recognizable species of a butterfly” is an ignorant wrongful lie. Examiner Powers plainly knew this. Why didn't Examiner Quinn? Here she would be advised to read up on photorealism until she can at least raise her level of understanding of this basic subject to that of “a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.”
As still further proof of all the above, the purposes of Krivda's and Butler's inventions are different: one is a mechanical connector, the other is a wide short tie. Surely the judge who presided over Nuvasive vs. Warsaw Orthopedic would have decreed that since the prior art and pending art in this case have different purposes, the prior art does not anticipate the pending art.
The second patent that Examiner Quinn cited as anticipating the disclosed invention was granted to Sylvia Hood (U.S. D195,626) on Jul. 7, 1963. Examiner Karen E. Eldridge Powers also cited this prior art as not anticipating the disclosed invention. As for Examiner Quinn, in her second Office Action of Sep. 18, 2013 (page 4, §6, line 1) she rejected the disclosed invention “as being unpatentable over Krivda in view of Hood.” To begin with, it is hoped that the previous explication of Krivda's irrelevance indicates that any effort to reject the disclosed invention as unpatentable “over” Krivda “in view of” anything is simply reductio ad absurdum. Nevertheless, let us go on. Examiner Quinn's next several sentences in which she explains her rejection are a chaos of illogical phrases, semi-lies, and at least four typographical errors, and I believe any competent professional who reads them would concur. I'll discuss part of one sentence as example: “The device of Hood discloses a butterfly having a decorative design of a Large Blue Moth . . . ” (1) In no part of Hood's patent—its figure, its claim, its cited reference—does Hood say or suggest her invention is a butterfly—so this is a lie on Quinn's part. (2) When Quinn says Hood's butterfly has the design of a moth she is saying a butterfly is a moth when a specific species of butterfly cannot possibly be a specific species of moth—a failure to understand a basic concept in the present case. (3) Quinn says Hood's invention is a design of a “Large Blue Moth.” According to (http://bugguide.net/node/view/82), a comprehensive and up-to-date authority on moths, there are “About 13,000 described species in North America (plus many more undescribed species) . . . and about 165,000 described species in the world.” Here Hood's “Large Blue Moth” is not a specific species of moth but could be one of hundreds of such species, and this lack of specificity stakes Quinn's claim as existing wholly outside the province of novelty and uniqueness that is particularly pointed out and distinctly claimed by the disclosed invention: a photorealistic representation of an actual specific species of open-winged butterfly or moth. Here Quinn is aimlessly throwing words around without knowing what they mean in a way that makes me wonder how on earth can I ever obtain a just resolution in this matter with this person? Her words are certainly not the kind of logical analysis a paying applicant has a right to expect of a patent examiner.
But to get to the meat of the matter: the subject matter of Hood's invention is not any butterfly or moth so much as it is a plaque—as proven by Hood herself when she says in one short page that her invention's title is a PLAQUE, that her invention's figure is “a front view of a plaque showing my new design [Quinn's alleged “butterfly” but Hood's actual moth],” and that her invention's only claim is “The ornamental design for a plaque as shown and described.” Here one can plainly see that the subject matter of Hood's invention, as intended and declared by Hood herself, is obviously a plaque, which includes the design on the front, the hanger on the back, and the double-faced substrate between—of which the frontal design is merely a subset. According to Quinn's flawed logic, a design patent for an exterminator's ID card that shows moth pests on its front could wrongfully be cited as rejecting the disclosed invention! Examiner Powers could plainly see this. Why couldn't Examiner Quinn? Here she would be advised to look up the word species in the dictionary, and study its definitions awhile, until she fully understands how this word is elementally relevant to the present case.
Further, the purposes of Hood's and Butler's inventions are different: one you hang on a wall, the other you hang on your neck. Surely the judge who presided over Nuvasive vs. Warsaw Orthopedic would have decreed that since the prior art and pending art have different purposes the prior art does not anticipate the pending art.
In summary, Krivda's and Hood's inventions do not lawfully anticipate the disclosed invention because their subject matters and purposes are obviously different no matter how similarly they might look from a certain direction—because the granting of utility patents is not governed by pictures. In every instance in the present case, this difference is defined by one word: species. No species: no anticipation: no negation! Oppositely, the only portal into the peerless province of novelty and uniqueness that is particularly pointed out and distinctly claimed by the disclosed invention is by way of species that a naked eye can positively identify in a guidebook on butterflies.
The various features of this invention as disclosed herein may be more fully understood by the following Drawings of a preferred embodiment of the invention. In certain previous applications the Drawings' numerals were text figures (i.e. they read like this: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0) while in this Application the Drawings' numerals are titling figures (i.e. they read like this: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0). The previous numerals looked like 10L and 10R which are clumsier to read than 10-L and 10-R. No changes have been made to the actual drawings or the numbering of the numerals thereon. The amended Drawings appear in two versions, each on a separate page: Page 1 is an Annotated Sheet Showing Changes on which the figures' old numerals are crossed out and the new numerals appear alongside. Page 2 is a Replacement Sheet on which the new numerals appear in clean form. The three figures that comprise the Drawings are as follows:
Referring to the drawings in detail wherein the same reference numbers indicate the same features in each figure, and also that each name referred to by each number refers to the same name as it appears in the preceding Specification, a detailed description of the invention as it appears in the Drawings is as follows:
The reference numerals 10 represent the sheetlike material that comprises the opened wings and central body region of said butterfly;
The numerals 10-O point to material 10's outline that circumscribes the opened wings and central body region of said butterfly;
The numerals 10-S indicate material 10's frontal surface that displays the patterns and coloring in the opened wings of said butterfly;
The numeral 12 indicates a narrow thin material representing the shape and depth of the butterfly's body that is vertically attached to the central body region of material 10; and
The numerals 10-L and 10-R denote the area of said butterfly's opened wings that extend from the sides of the butterfly's body 12.
The numeral 10 indicates the sheetlike material that comprises the opened wings and central body region of said preferred embodiment, a Monarch butterfly, which in this view appears as a heavy line that represents the thinness of a butterfly's wing;
The numerals 10-O point to the material 10's outline that circumscribes the opened wings and central body region of said butterfly;
The numeral 10-S indicates material 10's frontal surface that displays the patterns and coloring in the opened wings of said butterfly;
The numeral 12 indicates the narrow thin material representing the shape and depth of the butterfly's body that is vertically attached to the central frontal region of material 10; and
The numerals 10-L and 10-R denote the butterfly's opened wings that extend from the sides of the butterfly's body 12 wherein wings 10-L and 10-R are bent slightly forward to replicate the natural pose of an opened butterfly's wings.
The numeral 10 represents the sheetlike material that comprises the opened wings and central body region of said preferred embodiment, a Monarch butterfly;
The numerals 10-O point to the material 10's outline that circumscribes the opened wings and central body region of said butterfly;
The numeral 12-S points to the narrow thin material representing the shape and depth of the butterfly's body that is vertically attached to the central frontal region of material 10 before it is attached to material 10, and the numeral 12-D shows the location of said narrow thin material representing the shape and depth of the butterfly's body after it is attached to said material 10; and
The numerals 10-L and 10-R denote the area of said butterfly's opened wings that extend from the sides of the butterfly's body 12 (in this rear view the left and right wings are visually reversed from the front view of
The claims that begin on the following page replace all prior claims that appeared in the disclosed invention's previous applications. If certain parts of the new claims are not worded in the clearest manner, the applicant prays the examiner and inventor together can craft the wording of the new claims in a manner that will render the disclosed invention as most impervious to anticipation and infringement.
Although the disclosed invention has been described in terms of a particular embodiment with a degree of articulation, the spirit of this disclosure does not lie in any description of any specific embodiment or part thereof, as each portion of said embodiment may have a number of modifications wherein each alone and together may be capable of equally representing said embodiment without departing from the utility of the invention as disclosed herein. Thus it should be understood that this description of said embodiment is rendered only by example, and that each portion may be more fully understood and validated by the following claims which define the province of novelty and uniqueness that is particularly pointed out and distinctly claimed to be the subject matter of the disclosed invention; and that this invention's patent if granted shall cover by interpretation of the following claims whatever features of utility that would be compatible with the essence and spirit of what is hereinafter claimed.
