Appeal No. 97-0124
Application No. 08/273,672
the drawing in a utility patent can be cited against the claims
of a utility patent application even though the feature shown in
the drawing was unintended or unexplained in the specification of
the reference patent. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500
(CCPA 1979). In the present factual situation, we agree with the
Examiner (Answer, page 5) that, even though the drawings in
Guzowski may not be to scale, an inference can be drawn from
Guzowski’s Figure 2 as to the relative dimensions of the
connecting elements 50 and 82, 84. It is apparent from this
figure that Guzowski intended to convey that connecting element
50 has a different configuration than connecting elements 82 and
84, an indication of which is the clear disparity in width of the
claw elements of the connectors. If Guzowski had intended for
all the electrode connecting elements to be alike, it would have
been an easy task to so illustrate. In view of the above, we
sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of
independent claims 1 and 4.
With respect to dependent claims 7/4, 8, 9, and 10/1, we
sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of these claims as well.
As to multiple dependent claim 7, we have assumed, as has
Appellant, that from the Examiner’s statement of the rejection
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007