Appeal No. 2002-1216
Application No. 09/034,466
drawings are to scale and is silent as to dimensions, the
particular claimed proportions of the radiused portion cannot be
established. See Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Group
Int’l, 222 F.3d 951, 956, 55 USPQ2d 1487, 1491 (Fed. Cir. 2000)
(The disclosure gave no indication that the drawings were drawn
to scale. “[I]t is well established that patent drawings do not
define the precise proportions of the elements and may not be
relied on to show particular sizes if the specification is
completely silent on the issue.”). See also In re Olson, 212
F.2d 590, 592, 101 USPQ 401, 402 (CCPA 1954) (“Ordinarily
drawings which accompany an application for a patent are merely
illustrative of the principles embodied in the alleged invention
claimed therein and do not define the precise proportions of
elements relied upon to endow the claims with patentability”);
Manual of Patent Examining Procedure, Section 2125, eighth
edition, revision 1, Feb. 2003.
There is no indication in Budde that any particular shape of
the radiused portion is intended or its proportions are drawn to
scale. The examiner’s conclusion is based merely on speculation
with respect to the shape and proportions of the connecting
portion between load beam spring 12 and proximate end 14 and
therefore, fails to establish a prima facie case of anticipation.
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007