Appeal No. 2002-2039 Page 9
Application No. 09/258,712
also is presumed to be enabling of Applicants claimed invention. Such an
argument would only be true if Applicants and Sturman were claiming the same
subject matter, which they do not. Thus, in this case, how the identified features
of Sturman are put together is at the heart of whether Sturman can properly
support a § 102(b) rejection against Applicants' claims. The MPEP also requires
that the drawing must be evaluated for what it reasonably discloses and
suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200
USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979). Since Sturman could reasonably be interpreted by one
with ordinary skill in the art as showing something other than what the examiner
has asserted, Sturman cannot be said to anticipate what Applicants have
claimed.
With regard to how one with ordinary skill in the art would interpret Figure
2 of Sturman, one should start with ascertaining whether the Sturman spacer
124 has a guide clearance. There should be no dispute that in a drawing, such
as Figure 2 of Sturman, the difference between an illustration of parts having a
guide clearance and those not having a guide clearance can be less than the
thickness of a line in the drawing. Thus, to look at a drawing in a fuel injector
context and declare that it shows a guide clearance without any support for that
assertion in the written description of that illustration, and without any support in
the art of record or any support in the general context of the fuel injector art is
improper and overreaching. When one closely examines Figure 2 of Sturman, it
is clear that it includes side channels (vertical dashed lines) that facilitate fluid
communication with the spring volume above spacer 124 and the volume below
spacer 124. These channels are clearly included so that fluid can be displaced
between the upper and lower volumes allowing the assembly to move as
indicated. Applicants respectfully assert that no one skilled in the art would
interpret Figure 2-of Sturman as showing spacer 125 as being a guide clearance
while at the same time including channels to permit fluid communication,
especially when the Sturman text is silent on this matter. Thus, Applicants
respectfully assert that item 124 of Sturman would not be interpreted by one with
ordinary skill in the art as having a guide clearance with its bore, as required by
Applicants' claims.
A more reasonable interpretation of Sturmans' Figure 2 would indicate
that spacer 124's thickness is far more important to the operation of the fuel
injector shown than its diametrical clearance within its bore. In particular, one
skilled in this relevant art would recognize that if the Sturman fuel injector was
mass produced, one would need to assemble fuel injectors using a variety of
spacers having slightly different thicknesses so that the valve opening pressure
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007