Ex Parte Hu - Page 3

              Appeal 2007-1217                                                                                                
              Application 10/219,135                                                                                          

          1   from one another.  It is our finding that the Examiner has provided as an exemplar                              
          2   marked-up Drawing of Figs. 2 and 4 of the Hsieh patent.  Fig. 4 purports to show                                
          3   arcs through the first and second teeth portions which the Examiner has                                         
          4   circumscribed from two different centers of curvature E and F.  Even a cursory                                  
          5   review of the marked-up Fig. 4 furnished by the Examiner shows that the arcs                                    
          6   circumscribed on the exemplar do not coincide with an imaginary circle                                          
          7   circumscribed through the apexes of the teeth on the pawl or an imaginary circle                                
          8   through the roots of the teeth on the pawl.  It is apparent to us that only an arc                              
          9   through the teeth 31 in Fig. 4 could possibly be argued as representing the                                     
         10   curvature of one teeth portion of the pawl.  However, this is not the location of the                           
         11   Examiner’s circumscribed arcs.  Inasmuch as the Hsieh patent does not discuss the                               
         12   two teeth portions 31 as having different centers of curvature, and the Examiner                                
         13   has failed to show in his marked-up Drawings two centers of curvature, it is our                                
         14   factual finding that claim 1 is not anticipated by the Hsieh reference.                                         
         15                                      PRINCIPLES OF LAW                                                            
         16           The prior art may anticipate a claimed invention, and thereby render it                                 
         17   non-novel, either expressly or inherently.  In re Cruciferous Sprout Litig., 301 F.3d                           
         18   1343, 1349, 64 USPQ2d 1202, 1206 (Fed. Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 907                                   
         19   (2003).  Express anticipation occurs when the prior art expressly discloses each                                
         20   limitation (i.e., each element) of a claim.  Id. In addition, [i]t is well settled that a                       
         21   prior art reference may anticipate when the claim limitations not expressly found in                            
         22   that reference are nonetheless inherent in it.  Id.                                                             
         23           Absent any written description in the specification of quantitative values,                             
         24   arguments based on measurement of a drawing are of little value.  See In re                                     
         25   Wright, 569 F.2d 1124, 1127, 193 USPQ 332, 335 (CCPA 1977); In re Chitayat,                                     
         26   408 F.2d 475, 478, 161 USPQ 224, 226-27 (CCPA 1969).  Failure of [a]                                            

                                                              3                                                               


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013