Appeal 2006-3311
Application 10/392,525
1 that the entire top of the box is closed with the exception of slight corner
2 cutaways. This is not based on specific measurement, but one’s view of the
3 structure of the box.
4 Secondly, Hockerson involved a district court claim construction in an
5 infringement litigation where the district court had occasion to determine the
6 scope of a claim of an asserted patent. During prosecution of the underlying
7 application, the applicant-plaintiff-appellant disavowed footwear having a
8 groove width greater than that disclosed in the prior art. The district court
9 then interpreted the claim narrowly, and entered judgment of non-
10 infringement. On appeal, the applicant-plaintiff-appellant urged that the
11 district court erred in narrowly interpreting the claims in view of drawings in
12 the specification depicting a groove that is wider than the fins. The Federal
13 Circuit noted that patent drawings do not define the “precise proportions” of
14 the elements and may not be relied on to show “particular sizes” if the
15 specification is completely silent on the issue.
16 Hockerson cites to older precedent - In re Wright , 569 F.2d 1124,
17 1127, 193 USPQ 332, 335 (CCPA 1977) and In re Olson , 212 F.2d 590,
18 592, 101 USPQ 401, 402 (CCPA 1954). In Wright, the solicitor actually
19 measured the drawing and urged that the drawings indicated a chime length
20 of roughly 1/2 to 1 inch for a whiskey barrel. In Olsen, an applicant was
21 relying on drawings to attempt to establish a spatial relationship as support
22 for matter introduced in to the claims for a hydraulic coupler. However, the
23 drawing could not be scaled off to show any sizes or distances that were
24 urged to be exactly equal (on the order of thousandths of an inch).
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013