2120 Prior Art‎ > ‎

2125

2125 Drawings as Prior Art

Aslanian

A predecessor to our reviewing court stated that a drawing in a utility patent can be cited against the claims of a utility patent application 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 (CCPA 1979) citing In re Meng, 492 F.2d 843, 847 (CCPA 1974) (the staggered cheese slices case); In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 231 (CCPA 1947); In re Wagner, 63 F.2d 987, 988 (CCPA 1933).

Hockerson

"[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." Hockerson-Halbertstadt, Inc. v. Avia Group Int’l Inc., 222 F.3d 951, 956 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (holding that the drawings could not be relied upon to construe whether the term "central longitudinal groove" required that the width of the groove be less than the combined width of the fins).
 
“[P]atent 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.” Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Group. Int'l, Inc., 222 F.3d 951, 956 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (in which the patent owner’s argument hinged on an inference drawn from certain figures about the quantitative relationship between the respective widths of the groove and fins);

Appellants concede that drawings can anticipate claims when they clearly show the structure that is claimed (citing MPEP § 2125 and In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069 (CCPA 1972)), but also correctly point out that drawings “cannot be relied upon for precise proportions or particular sizes of objects when the specification is silent on the matter,” citing Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Group Int'l, 222 F.3d 951, 956 (Fed. Cir. 2000).

Mraz

The drawing has to show the subject matter with great particularity when the subject matter is unexplained in order for the drawing to be dispositive in finding the subject matter lying within a claim to be old. In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1972).
 
While patent drawings alone may be used to reject claims, the value of the drawing sin that context extends only to what is clearly shown therein. See In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1972).
 
WRIGHT
 
see also In re Wright, 569 F.2d 1124, 1127 (CCPA 1977) (“Absent any written description in the specification of quantitative values, arguments based on measurement of a drawing are of little value.”).

Subpages (1): not in mpep
Comments