Appeal No. 2000-1060
Application No. 09/030,378
from a groove to the rim of a whiskey barrel of about ½ inch to
1 inch. See id.
Also relevant are In re Nash, 230 F.2d 428, 109 USPQ 36
(CCPA 1956) and In re Olsen, 212, F.2d 590, 101 USPQ 402-03 (CCPA
1954). In Nash, 230 F.2d at 430-31, 109 USPQ at 37-38, the
specification described one of two openings in a load supporting
pneumatic cushioning device as being in free open communication
with a reservoir, and the other opening as being a restriction,
but the drawing showed the two openings as having substantially
the same diameter. The court stated that “[w]hile the
appellant’s drawing, as above noted, seems to show the passages
as being of about the same size, it is well settled that the
drawings of patent applications are not necessarily scale or
working drawings, and that a clear disclosure of parts or
proportions in the specification is not nullified by a
draftsman’s error indicating different proportions or
arrangements.” Nash, 230 F.2d at 431, 109 USPQ at 38. In Olsen,
212 F.2d 590, 592-93, 101 USPQ 401, 402-03 (CCPA 1954), the court
stated that “[o]rdinarily drawings which accompany an application
for a patent are merely illustrative of the principles embodied
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007