Appeal No. 2006–0033 Παγε 8
Application No. 10/764,302
Figure 1 of Gunnarson provides only a simplified schematic representation of the
teeth engaging the workpieces at locations 1, 2 and 3. Both the examiner and the
appellants have engaged in what appears to us to be a somewhat futile attempt to
determine if Figure 1 of Gunnarson shows the claimed single tooth contact. Figure 1 of
Gunnarson is not a working drawing2 and it is clear to us that Gunnarson never
intended Figure 1 to disclose to one skilled in the art the now claimed single tooth
contact.3 Since it is well settled that the burden of establishing a prima facie case of
anticipation resides with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO),4 it is
2 See In re Chitayat, 408 F.2 d 475, 478, 161 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1969); In re Wilson, 312
F.2d 449, 454, 136 USPQ 188, 192 (CCPA 1963).
3 It is well established that an anticipation rejection cannot be predicated on an ambiguous
reference. Rather, statements and drawings in a reference relied on to prove anticipation must be so clear
and explicit that those skilled in the art will have no difficulty in ascertaining their meaning. See In re
Turlay, 304 F.2d 893, 899, 134 USPQ 355, 360 (CCPA 1962).
4 See In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007