Appeal No. 1998-3289
Application 08/362,167
conventional in the art.” We, of course, recognize that a
drawing is available as a reference for all that it teaches a
person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Meng, 492 F.2d
843, 181 USPQ 94 (CCPA 1974). However, on the facts of the
present case, this panel of the board concludes that the
overall reference teachings, evaluated alone and in
combination, would not have suggested the particular
relationships expressly set forth in each of independent
claims 1 and 18. Specifically, scaling unscaled patent
drawings for precise dimensions clearly yields a speculative
assessment, and is not sound prior art fact finding for
supporting the obviousness of the claimed invention.
The examiner has simply failed to provide evidence from
the ballpoint pen art establishing a factual basis upon which
to conclude that the now claimed invention would have been
obvious to those having ordinary skill. As explained, supra,
the only evidence before us neither reveals that those with
ordinary skill in the art related the parameters of L, D, and
T relative to one another in designing a pipe projecting
portion, nor discloses that the dimensions of known pipe
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007