Appeal No. 2005-0879
Application No. 09/822,136
In essence, the factual basis advanced by the examiner in
support of the appealed rejections consists of Mathein’s drawing
of rotary disk cutter L and Jahn’s drawing of circular cutter
wheel 16. As urged by the examiner, things clearly shown in the
drawings of a reference patent are not to be disregarded in
assessing the patentability of a claim. In re Mraz, 455 F.2d
1069, 1072, 173 USPQ 25, 27 (CCPA 1972). On the other hand, as
patent drawings generally are not working drawings drawn to
scale, it is well established that they do not define the precise
proportions of the elements shown therein and may not be relied
on to show particular sizes if the specification is completely
silent on the issue. Hockerson-Halberstadt Inc. v. Avia Group
International Inc., 222 F.3d 951, 956, 55 USPQ2d 1487, 1491
(Fed. Cir. 2000).
In the present case, Mathein and Jahn do not discuss cutting
edge angles or indicate that their drawings are to scale.
Moreover, the drawings in these references are not so clear that
they teach, or would have suggested, a cutting edge angle within
the range set forth in the appealed claims. Indeed, by the
examiner’s own measurement,1 Mathein’s drawings show a cutting
1 See the Office action mailed on July 29, 2003 which was
incorporated by reference into the final rejection.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007