Appeal No. 97-3193
Application 08/467,326
4
presence of other elements , the fact that Erb’s disk may include additional elements such
as liquid inlet 44 is of no moment. Finally, to the extent appellants argue that Erb’s disk
5
element 37 is not usable in fuel injection valves , the argument fails at the outset because
neither of the appealed claims recite, either positively of inferentially, a fuel injector valve.
In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348, 213 USPQ 1, 5 (CCPA 1982).
Appellants also argue that element 37 of Erb is not disclosed as being composed
of metal. We do not agree. A drawing is available as a reference for all that it teaches a
person of ordinary skill in the art. Further, a claimed invention may be anticipated by a
drawing in a reference, whether the drawing disclosure is accidental or intentional. In re
Meng, 492 F.2d 843, 847, 181 USPQ 94, 97 (CCPA 1974). Here, based on the drawing
conventions approved by the PTO and in effect as of (1) the filing date (June, 19, 1975) of
the parent S.N. 588,353 application to Erb, (2) the filing date (July 1, 1975) of the
application that matured into the Erb patent, and (3) the issue date (April 19, 1977) of the
Erb patent, as established by the Rules of Practice in effect at the time the application that
4See, for example, 2D. Chisum, Patents §8.06 (1) (1992).
5 “Appellants further submit that . . . it would not be readily apparent to one of
ordinary skill in the art of fuel injection valves to construct a valve spray disk . . . as recited
in claim 1” (brief, page 5; bold in original).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007