Appeal No. 2005-1216
Application No. 10/117,453
Thus, we find that Hillenkamp I and II anticipate the sample holder described in claim
30.
With respect to the appellants’ argument that Hillenkamp I submitted a Certificate
of Correction cancelling, inter alia, Figures 10-12B, we agree that a Certificate of
Correction was received by the USPTO on August 8, 1998 and approved by the
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks on December 29, 1998. See Paper No. 12,
and Hillenkamp I, page following col. 12. However, not only were the figures published
on July 17, 1998, when the patent issued, but they are still present in the publicly
available copies today.
To that end, it is well established that drawings and figures can anticipate claims
if they show the structure as claimed. In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 1072, 173 USPQ 25,
27 (CCPA 1972)(“Description for the purposes of anticipation can be by drawings alone
as well as by words”). Moreover, the origin of the drawings is immaterial. That is,
drawings in a design patent can anticipate or render obvious claims in a utility patent
“even though the feature shown in the drawing was unintended or unexplained in the
specification of the reference patent.” In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 914, 200 USPQ
500, 503 (CCPA 1979). Thus, because Figures 10-12B of Hillenkamp I were published
when the patent issued, and are still in the public domain, they are available as prior art
for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. As
discussed above, we find that the figures in combination with the teachings of
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007