Obscured elements in design drawings, appropriate way to describe?

[MYK]

Yet another design patent question on drawings.  :}

THING consists of a main body and an attachment.  The attachment obscures a part of the main body that is intended to be claimed.

If all but one drawing shows the complete THING, and one view shows the THING without the attachment, is it ok to only mention the attachment in the two views -- one obscured with attachment attached, one unobscured with attachment removed -- that are specifically affected?  Or should all of the other views, which show the attachment but in a location where nothing is obscured, all mention the attachment?

Example:
Fig.1 shows a right side view of THING;
Fig.2 shows a front view of THING;
Fig.3 shows a rear view of THING with ATTACHMENT attached; and
Fig.4 shows a rear view of THING with ATTACHMENT removed.
The left side view of THING is a mirror of the right side view shown in Fig.1 and so is omitted.

[ipupWEALLpFORip]

i think your solution is sound (relying on mirror image). you could further disclaim ATTACHMENT saying it forms no part of claimed THING.

[jothya]

I have used mirror image statements like you suggest in the past without a problem.  Although, if the cost of another drawing isn't an issue, I sometimes err on the side of over disclosure and include the actual mirrored view in a figure.

When attached, Is ATTACHMENT only visible in the rear view (and not in the right, left, front, top bottom)? 

ipup proposes a good question, is ATTACHMENT part of the claimed design?  If not, showing a second rear view with ATTACHMENT attached and shown in broken lines (also include a broken line statement) obscuring a portion of the claimed THING should be fine; just make sure the rear view of THING without ATTACHMENT attached illustrates the obscured portion.  If ATTACHMENT is part of the claimed design, you can show an exploded rear view (with bracket) illustrating the obscured portion of THING. 

Also, if ATTACHMENT is a part of the claimed design, you may want to consider having all of the views being exploded and illustrating both THING and ATTACHMENT not attached.  Also include at least one view illustrating both THING and ATTACHMENT attached.

[MYK]

Thanks, folks!  I'll do the two separate views, one with and one without, then.  The component that the other stuff gets hidden behind is not a part of the claimed design;  in fact, it could be replaced with any of several different things.