Appeal 2007-1217
Application 10/219,135
1 Specification to mention dimension or subtle feature in drawing means that the
2 dimension or feature is entitled to no weight. Cf. Hockerson-Hlaberstadt, Inc. v.
3 Avia Group Int’l, Inc. 222 F.3d 951, 956, 55 USPQ2d 1487, 1491 (Fed. Cir. 2000):
4 Under our precedent, however, it is well
5 established that patent drawings do not
6 define the precise proportions of the
7 elements and may not be relied on to
8 show particular sizes if the specification
9 is completely silent on the issue. See In
10 re Wright, 569 F.2d 1124, 1127, 193
11 USPQ 332, 335 (CCPA 1977) (“Absent
12 any written description in the
13 specification of quantitative values,
14 arguments based on measurement of a
15 drawing are of little value.”); In re Olson,
16 41 C.C.P.A. 871, 212 F.2d 590, 592, 101
17 USPQ 401, 402 (CCPA 1954); cf.
18 Manual of Patent Examining Procedure
19 2125 (1998).
20
21 Accord Nystrom v. TREX Co., 424 F.3d 1136, 1149, 76 USPQ2d 1481, 1491
22 (Fed. Cir. 2005)(arguments based on drawings not explicitly made to scale
23 in issued patents are unavailing).
24
25 ANALYSIS
26 As noted above, it is our finding of fact that the Examiner’s marked-up
27 drawing from the Hsieh patent does not provide evidence that the two teeth
28 portions 31 have different centers of curvature. Furthermore, we note that the case
29 law is consistent in that embodiments based on measurements from a drawing are
30 of little value unless there is some indication that the drawings are scale drawings
31 or particular care has been taken in their generation. This is an additional reason,
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013