Here's a good example of that proposition:
Design patent D697,706 was, for some reason, issued last week to someone in Brooklyn. It claims only the ornamental design of the handle, not the umbrella part or the whole creepy assemblage.
Ridiculous patents can be a lot of fun because of the need to explain why the inventor's idea is different from and somehow better than the prior art. It wasn't really necessary with Monkey Dog Saddle, I guess, but I thought it added a lot to Apparatus Facilitating the Construction of a Snowman. Design patents don't seem to require that, which I guess makes sense. But it's too bad because I'd have liked to hear the explanation for this one.