Appeal No. 97-3193
Application 08/467,326
In re Meng, 492 F.2d at 847, 181 USPQ at 97. Appellants note that element 20 in Figure
1 of Erb is not cross hatched to indicate metal and urge that Erb’s cross hatching for
element 37 in Figure 5 would therefore be disregarded by one of ordinary skill in the art
because Erb does not consistently follow the cross hatching scheme suggested in
M.P.E.P. § 608.02. This argument is not well taken for the reason noted by the examiner,
namely, Figure 1 of Erb is not a sectional view and therefore would not be expected to
show elements with cross hatching. We simply disagree with appellants’ argument on
page 7 of the brief that Erb’s cross hatching serves only to differentiate between
components, and not to designate the “specific compositions” of components. In a
nutshell, there is simply no reason for us to presume that one of ordinary skill in the art, in
reading Erb’s drawings, would ignore the conventional and well accepted cross hatching
scheme used in patent drawings to indicate various materials for elements, as urged by
appellants.
In light of the foregoing, the standing § 102 rejection of claims 1 and 4 is affirmed.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007