Windshield wiper arm
Charet , et al. October 13, 1
U.S. patent number D330,181 [Application Number 07/542,397] was granted by the patent office on 1992-10-13 for windshield wiper arm. Invention is credited to Pierre Charet, Govelio R. Gonzalez.
| United States Patent | D330,181 |
| Charet , et al. | October 13, 1992 |
Windshield wiper arm
Claims
The ornamental design for a windshield wiper arm, as shown and described.
| Inventors: | Charet; Pierre (Miami, FL), Gonzalez; Govelio R. (Miami, FL) |
|---|---|
| Appl. No.: | 07/542,397 |
| Filed: | June 22, 1990 |
| Current U.S. Class: | D12/220 |
| Field of Search: | ;D12/155 ;15/250.31,250.32,250.33,250.35,250.36,250.38,250.41,250.42 |
References Cited [Referenced By]
U.S. Patent Documents
| 4628565 | December 1986 | Wolters |
Attorney, Agent or Firm: Longacre & White
Description
FIG. 1 is a top plan view of a windshield wiper arm showing our new design;
FIG. 2 is a left side elevational view thereof;
FIG. 3 is a left end elevational view thereof;
FIG. 4 is a right end elevational view thereof;
FIG. 5 is a bottom plan view thereof;
FIG. 6 is a sectional view thereof taken along line 6--6 of FIG. 1; and,
FIG. 7 is a right side elevational view thereof.
* * * * *
uspto.report is an independent third-party trademark research tool that is not affiliated, endorsed, or sponsored by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) or any other governmental organization. The information provided by uspto.report is based on publicly available data at the time of writing and is intended for informational purposes only.
While we strive to provide accurate and up-to-date information, we do not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, reliability, or suitability of the information displayed on this site. The use of this site is at your own risk. Any reliance you place on such information is therefore strictly at your own risk.
All official trademark data, including owner information, should be verified by visiting the official USPTO website at www.uspto.gov. This site is not intended to replace professional legal advice and should not be used as a substitute for consulting with a legal professional who is knowledgeable about trademark law.
| 