Appeal No. 2004-1750
Application No. 09/985,937
With further regard to the requirements in appellants'
independent claim 1 concerning the particular configuration of
the concave shapes, i.e., that they be either in the form of a
truncated cone or of a truncated pyramidal shape in which the
sides of the cone or pyramidal shape are at an angle of 30-60
degrees with respect to the side of the tie in which the concave
shapes are formed, and that the concave shapes have a depth of
"at least 1/8 of an inch," we are of the opinion that, a careful
review of drawing Figures 2 and 3 of Reis would have been
suggestive to one of ordinary skill in the art of 1) recesses of
a truncated pyramidal shape in which the sides of the pyramidal
shape are at an angle in the range of 30-60 degrees with respect
to the side of the railroad tie, and 2) such concave shaped
recesses having a depth of "at least 1/8 of an inch." As for
appellants' concern that the specification of the Reis patent
does not provide an express description of the angle of
inclination of the walls of the recesses (9) and does not suggest
that the drawings are drawn to scale, we direct attention to Vas-
Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1117
(Fed. Cir. 1991), wherein the Court specifically noted that
"drawings alone may provide a 'written description' of an
invention as required by § 112," and to In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d
77
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007