Appeal No. 1999-0954
Application 08/656,919
and 7 as to the relative positions of the crankshaft 12 and
balancer shaft 28 demonstrate that the arrows for viewline 7-
7 in Figure 4 should point in the opposite direction. As a
result, the appellants contend, the crankshaft in Figure 3
actually rotates in a counter-clockwise direction.
The examiner, on the other hand, argues (see pages 5
through 7 in the answer) that the arrows for viewline 7-7 in
Masuda’s Figure 4 are correct as shown, and that the drawing
incongruities noted by the appellants are due instead to an
inaccurate depiction of angular orientation in Figure 7.
Masuda’s Figure 7 is in fact inconsistent with the other
drawing figures in the reference, particularly Figure 3, and
the reference itself sheds no definitive light on which of the
two competing explanations offered by the appellants and the
examiner, if either, is correct. Hence, the disclosure of
Masuda as to the direction of crankshaft rotation in Figure 3
is, at best, ambiguous. It is well settled that an
anticipation rejection cannot be predicated on an ambiguous
reference. In re Turlay, 304 F.2d 893, 899, 134 USPQ 355, 360
(CCPA 1962). Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of claim 1, or of dependent
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007