Appeal No. 1997-2856
Application 08/394,251
insures that subject matter presented in the form of a claim
subsequent to the filing date of the application was
sufficiently disclosed at the time of filing so that the prima
facie date of invention can fairly be held to be the filing
date of the application." Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935
F.2d 1555, 1562, 19 UPSQ2d 1111, 1115 (Fed. Cir. 1991), citing
In re Smith, 481 F.2d 910, 914, 178 USPQ 620, 623 (CCPA 1973).
Appellant argues that any drawing supposed to depict a
physical object must be drawn to some specific scale or the
drawing will not resemble the object it is supposed to depict
(Br5). Appellant argues that the maximum diameter limitation
can be determined by direct measurements on figure 1, where
"the larger of the two inner diameters is 23 millimeters,
while the smaller of the two inner diameters is over 12
millimeters" (Br6).
"[D]rawings alone may be sufficient to provide the
'written description of the invention' required by § 112,
first paragraph." Vas-Cath, 935 F.2d at 1564, 19 UPSQ2d at
1117. However, drawings are not manufacturing drawings and
are not necessarily drawn to scale. See In re Wilson,
- 8 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007