a greater number of rays might be used, might claim a design consisting
generally of radial rays, or of "five or more" rays, and, that it could
not be necessary for him to take out a patent for each additional
ray that could be cut upon his button. So, if the design were the
ornamentation of long combs by a chain of pearls, it would seem that a
claim for such a design might be maintained against one who arranged
the pearls, either in curved or straight lines, or who used half pearls
only, and that such modifications if they had occurred to the designer,
might properly have been enumerated in his specification as possible and
equivalent variations. In short, I can see no reason, under the law, why
designs may not be generic, why what are called "broad claims," may
not be made to them, and why the doctrine of artistic or aesthetic
equivalents may not be applied to them.

This has been recognized to a greater or less extent in the
adjudications of the courts and in the practice of the Office.

One of the reported cases is that of Booth _vs_. Garelly 1, Blatch 247.
The design is described as consisting of "radially formed ornaments on
the face of the molds or blocks of which the button is formed, combined
with the mode of winding the covering on the same, substantially as
set forth, whether the covering be of one or more colors." The
specification, in "substantially" setting forth the design, contained
this language: "It will be obvious from the foregoing that the figures
can be changed at pleasure by giving the desired form to the face of the
mold by depressions and elevations which radiate from a point, whether
in the center of the mold or eccentric thereto."

In the consideration of the case by the Court no objection was made to
this statement or claim. In the case of Root _vs_. Ball, 4 McLean 180,