Appeal No. 2000-1060
Application No. 09/030,378
that ball stop head portions of a coupler for releasably
connecting hydraulic fluid conduits are equally spaced with
respect to their associated valve seats.
Thus, Wright, Nash and Olsen all indicate that unless patent
drawings are disclosed as being drawn to scale, which Aindow’s
drawings are not, meaningful measurements cannot be taken from
them.
The appellants argue that the present case is more similar
to In re Heinrich, 268 F.2d 753, 122 USPQ 388 (CCPA 1959) than to
any of the above cases (request, page 3). The court in Heinrich,
268 F.2d at 755-56, 122 USPQ at 390, stated:
Each of the appealed claims calls for a taper of less
than 7½º as projected against a plane parallel to the
axis of the sealing ring. Weis does not specify the
angle of taper but the board stated that the taper
shown in his drawing is less than 7½º and that
statement is not questioned here by appellant. While
it is true that patent drawings are not ordinarily
considered to be working drawings drawn to scale, the
only reasonable interpretation of the Weis disclosure
is that a very small angle of taper is to be used and
we are of the opinion that one skilled in the art would
normally use a taper of less than 7½º in carrying out
the teachings of the Weis patent, and that such an
angle is, therefore, fairly disclosed by the patent.
The appellants argue that “[h]ad Heinrich claimed a taper angle
of, say, ‘more than 30º’ surely the decision would have come out
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007