PTAB.US: Decisions of PTAB Patent Trial and Appeal Board Updated Daily.

Search This Blog

Loading...

Thursday, December 3, 2015

wagner, mraz,seid


custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1677 Ex Parte Cooper et al 12361413 - (D) McCOLLUM 103 Gates & Cooper LLP - Minimed BROWN, MELANIE YU


Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Aggerholm et al 12964055 - (D) HOELTER 103 Cook Medical Technologies LLC NGUYEN, TUAN VAN

Regarding Appellants’ contentions, our reviewing court has held that drawings can be used as prior art, without referring to the surrounding description, only if the prior art features are clearly disclosed by the drawing. See, e.g., In re Wagner, 63 F.2d 987, 986–87 (CCPA 1933). Here, the filets, which transition between Sirhan’s scoring element (or wing) and balloon wall, are clearly disclosed. See also In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1972) (“[W]e did not mean that things patent drawings show clearly are to be disregarded.”); In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 231 (CCPA 1947) (“ [A]n accidental disclosure, if clearly made in a drawing, is available as a reference.” ) (citations omitted). Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ contentions that the described filet does not exist or is merely the result of artistic license. Instead, the Examiner can properly rely on Sirhan’s disclosure of the curved filet adjacent the scoring element.

Mraz, In re, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972) 2125

Seid, In re, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947) 2112.01 2144.04

No comments :