Appeal No. 2002-1143
Application No. 09/085,933
Based on the showing in the drawings of Dow and Graham,7 the
unnumbered groove or notch in the temple-roller of Figure 2 of Dow
and the grooves 98 in the liner of Figure 7 of Graham comprise
slots that extend into the core to a depth such that the webs
formed by the slots are thinner that the slots are deep. As to
Folden, attention is directed to column 6, lines 36 to 45, where
the depth of the scoring notch 38 relative to the wall thickness of
the coupling results in a slot depth and core web thickness that
satisfy the requirements of claim 26.
Appellant’s arguments in the main and reply briefs directed to
claims 21 and 26 have been considered with respect to the new
rejections entered above. The argument directed to the issue of
non-analogous art is simply not germane to the new rejections since
they are anticipation rejections made under 35 U.S.C. § 102. In re
Schrieber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432; In re Self, 671
F.2d 1344, 1350-51, 213 USPQ 1, 7 (CCPA 1982).
7A drawing is available as a reference for all that it
teaches a person of ordinary skill in the art. In re Meng, 492
F.2d 843, 847, USPQ 94, 97 (CCPA 1974). Hence, a claimed
invention may be anticipated by a drawing even if its disclosure
is accidental. Id. Although patent drawings usually are not
working drawings, features that are clearly shown cannot be
disregarded even if such features are unexplained by the
specification. In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 1072, 173 USPQ 25, 27
(CCPA 1972).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007