Appeal No. 2002-0962
Application No. 09/017,959
for anticipation under § 102(b). Stevens, being a design patent,
does not contain a detailed description of the device shown in its
drawings, but that does not impair its ability to anticipate
appellant’s claims, since a claimed invention may be anticipated or
rendered obvious by a reference drawing. In re Meng, 492 F.2d 843,
847, 181 USPQ 94, 97 (CCPA 1974). See also In re Aslanian, 590
F.2d 911, 913, 200 USPQ 500, 502 (CCPA 1979) (“numerous decisions
have indicated that design patents can be properly cited as the
basis for an anticipation rejection of claims in an application for
a utility patent”). Since, for the reasons discussed above,
Stevens expressly or inherently discloses all the limitations of
claim 17, we conclude that claim 17 is anticipated by Stevens.
Accordingly, the anticipation rejection of claim 17 will be
sustained. Likewise, the anticipation rejection of claims 18-28
will also be sustained since the appealed claims stand or fall as a
group.
Recommendation Pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.196(c)
Our decision supra affirming the examiner’s anticipation
rejection is predicated on the fact that appellant’s claims call
for the tips of the projections to define a curve which has a
curvature substantially like a curvature of a bowling ball when
force is exerted by the bowler on the ball, a claim interpretation
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007