{"section":{"filename":"s2125.html","chapter":"2100","section_number":"2125","title":"Drawings as Prior Art","revision_tag":"R-10.2019","bytes":63051,"sha256":"d98721c30f8eeeafe1f2c00df1c173c0310854c0b529992758af69879389be0c","subsection_count":0,"max_depth":0,"subsections":[]},"quality":"structured","cited_authorities":{"file_section":"2125","cases":[{"key":"case:455f.2d1069","slug":"in-re-mraz","short_name":"In re Mraz","canonical_citation":"In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972)","decision_year":1972,"court":"CCPA","holding_summary":"Drawings and pictures can anticipate claims if they clearly show the structure that is claimed.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":["drawings anticipate claims if they clearly show the claimed structure"]},{"key":"case:28f.2d812","slug":"jockmus-v-leviton","short_name":"Jockmus v. Leviton","canonical_citation":"Jockmus v. Leviton, 28 F.2d 812 (2d Cir. 1928)","decision_year":1928,"court":"2d Cir.","holding_summary":"Drawings and pictures in a prior art reference can anticipate a claim, but only if the picture shows all the claimed structural features and how they are put together.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":["reference picture must show all claimed structural features and how they fit together"]},{"key":"case:590f.2d911","slug":"in-re-aslanian","short_name":"In re Aslanian","canonical_citation":"In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979)","decision_year":1979,"court":"CCPA","holding_summary":"Drawings in a prior art reference must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art, regardless of the drawing's origin or whether the feature shown is unintended or unexplained in the specification.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":["drawings evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill"]},{"key":"case:222f.3d951","slug":"hockerson-halberstadt-inc-v-avia-group-intl","short_name":"Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Group Int’l","canonical_citation":"Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Group Int’l, 222 F.3d 951, 55 USPQ2d 1487 (Fed. Cir. 2000)","decision_year":2000,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"Patent drawings do not define precise proportions and may not be relied upon to show particular sizes when the specification is silent as to scale; measurements of features in drawings not shown to be to scale are of little value.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":["drawings not relied on to show particular sizes when specification is silent as to scale"]},{"key":"case:569f.2d1124","slug":"in-re-wright","short_name":"In re Wright","canonical_citation":"In re Wright, 569 F.2d 1124, 193 USPQ 332 (CCPA 1977)","decision_year":1977,"court":"CCPA","holding_summary":"The description of an article pictured in a reference may be relied on, together with the drawings, for what they reasonably teach one of ordinary skill, though undimensioned drawings do not establish scale; and the mere age of references is not persuasive of nonobviousness absent evidence the art tried and failed to solve the problem.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":["described article, with drawings, may be relied on for what it reasonably teaches"]}],"statutes":[],"cross_references":[{"key":"mpep:2121","section_number":"2121","title":"Prior Art; General Level of Operability Required to Make a Prima Facie Case","exists":true,"mentions":1}],"form_paragraphs":[]},"structured_data":{"nodes":[{"id":"se_27pv73hr","node_type":"section","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/se_27pv73hr","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-10.2019","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s2125.html","source_anchor":"d0e202147","source_sha256":"d98721c30f8eeeafe1f2c00df1c173c0310854c0b529992758af69879389be0c"},"akn_urn":"/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_2125","canonical_url":"https://mpep.io/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_2125","section_number":"2125","chapter":"2100","depth":0,"title":"Drawings as Prior Art","children_ids":["pb_ezr3gqni","pb_37ixqomo","pb_7mxi7677","pb_urwvhe7a"],"revision_tag":"R-10.2019"},{"id":"pb_ezr3gqni","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_ezr3gqni","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-10.2019","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<b id=\"\">I.</b><b id=\"\"> DRAWINGS CAN BE USED AS PRIOR ART</b>","rendered_text_plain":"I. DRAWINGS CAN BE USED AS PRIOR ART","provenance":{"source_file":"s2125.html","source_anchor":"d0e202147/b.0","source_sha256":"d98721c30f8eeeafe1f2c00df1c173c0310854c0b529992758af69879389be0c"},"kind":"informal_heading","host_section_id":"se_27pv73hr","heading_level":2,"heading_text":"I. DRAWINGS CAN BE USED AS PRIOR ART"},{"id":"pb_37ixqomo","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_37ixqomo","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-10.2019","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e202155\">Drawings and pictures can anticipate claims if they clearly show the\n                        structure which is claimed. <i>In re Mraz,</i> 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25\n                        (CCPA 1972). However, the picture must show all the claimed structural features and how\n                        they are put together. <i>Jockmus v. Leviton,</i> 28 F.2d 812 (2d Cir.\n                        1928). The origin of the drawing is immaterial. For instance, drawings in a design\n                        patent can anticipate or make obvious the claimed invention as can drawings in utility\n                        patents. When the reference is a utility patent, it does not matter that the feature\n                        shown is unintended or unexplained in the specification. The drawings must be evaluated\n                        for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.\n                        <i>In re Aslanian, </i>590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979). See\n                        <b><a href=\"s2121.html#d0e201980\">MPEP §\n                              2121.04</a></b> for more information on prior art drawings as “enabled\n                        disclosures.”\n                     </p>","rendered_text_plain":"Drawings and pictures can anticipate claims if they clearly show the structure which is claimed. In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972). However, the picture must show all the claimed structural features and how they are put together. Jockmus v. Leviton, 28 F.2d 812 (2d Cir. 1928). The origin of the drawing is immaterial. For instance, drawings in a design patent can anticipate or make obvious the claimed invention as can drawings in utility patents. When the reference is a utility patent, it does not matter that the feature shown is unintended or unexplained in the specification. The drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979). See MPEP § 2121.04 for more information on prior art drawings as “enabled disclosures.”","provenance":{"source_file":"s2125.html","source_anchor":"d0e202155","source_sha256":"d98721c30f8eeeafe1f2c00df1c173c0310854c0b529992758af69879389be0c"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_27pv73hr"},{"id":"pb_7mxi7677","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_7mxi7677","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-10.2019","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<b id=\"\">II.</b><b id=\"\"> PROPORTIONS OF FEATURES IN A DRAWING ARE NOT EVIDENCE OF ACTUAL PROPORTIONS WHEN\n                        DRAWINGS ARE NOT TO SCALE</b>","rendered_text_plain":"II. PROPORTIONS OF FEATURES IN A DRAWING ARE NOT EVIDENCE OF ACTUAL PROPORTIONS WHEN DRAWINGS ARE NOT TO SCALE","provenance":{"source_file":"s2125.html","source_anchor":"d0e202147/b.2","source_sha256":"d98721c30f8eeeafe1f2c00df1c173c0310854c0b529992758af69879389be0c"},"kind":"informal_heading","host_section_id":"se_27pv73hr","heading_level":2,"heading_text":"II. PROPORTIONS OF FEATURES IN A DRAWING ARE NOT EVIDENCE OF ACTUAL PROPORTIONS WHEN DRAWINGS ARE NOT TO SCALE"},{"id":"pb_urwvhe7a","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_urwvhe7a","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-10.2019","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e202174\">When the reference does not disclose that the drawings are to scale and\n                        is silent as to dimensions, arguments based on measurement of the drawing features are\n                        of little value. See <i>Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Group Int’l,</i>\n                        222 F.3d 951, 956, 55 USPQ2d 1487, 1491 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (The disclosure gave no\n                        indication that the drawings were drawn to scale. “[I]t is well established that patent\n                        drawings do not define the precise proportions of the elements and may not be relied on\n                        to show particular sizes if the specification is completely silent on the issue.”).\n                        However, the description of the article pictured can be relied on, in combination with\n                        the drawings, for what they would reasonably teach one of ordinary skill in the art.\n                        <i>In re Wright,</i> 569 F.2d 1124, 1127-28, 193 USPQ 332, 335-36 (CCPA\n                        1977) (“We disagree with the Solicitor’s conclusion, reached by a comparison of the\n                        relative dimensions of appellant’s and Bauer’s [the reference’s] drawing figures, that\n                        Bauer ‘clearly points to the use of a chime length of roughly 1/2 to 1 inch for a\n                        whiskey barrel.’ This ignores the fact that Bauer does not disclose that his drawings\n                        are to scale. ... However, we agree with the Solicitor that Bauer’s teaching that\n                        whiskey losses are influenced by the distance the liquor needs to ‘traverse the pores of\n                        the wood’ (albeit in reference to the thickness of the barrelhead)” would have suggested\n                        the desirability of an increased chime length to one of ordinary skill in the art bent\n                        on further reducing whiskey losses.” 569 F.2d at 1127, 193 USPQ at 335-36.) \n                     </p>","rendered_text_plain":"When the reference does not disclose that the drawings are to scale and is silent as to dimensions, arguments based on measurement of the drawing features are of little value. See Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Group Int’l, 222 F.3d 951, 956, 55 USPQ2d 1487, 1491 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (The disclosure gave no indication that the drawings were drawn to scale. “[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.”). However, the description of the article pictured can be relied on, in combination with the drawings, for what they would reasonably teach one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Wright, 569 F.2d 1124, 1127-28, 193 USPQ 332, 335-36 (CCPA 1977) (“We disagree with the Solicitor’s conclusion, reached by a comparison of the relative dimensions of appellant’s and Bauer’s [the reference’s] drawing figures, that Bauer ‘clearly points to the use of a chime length of roughly 1/2 to 1 inch for a whiskey barrel.’ This ignores the fact that Bauer does not disclose that his drawings are to scale. ... However, we agree with the Solicitor that Bauer’s teaching that whiskey losses are influenced by the distance the liquor needs to ‘traverse the pores of the wood’ (albeit in reference to the thickness of the barrelhead)” would have suggested the desirability of an increased chime length to one of ordinary skill in the art bent on further reducing whiskey losses.” 569 F.2d at 1127, 193 USPQ at 335-36.)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2125.html","source_anchor":"d0e202174","source_sha256":"d98721c30f8eeeafe1f2c00df1c173c0310854c0b529992758af69879389be0c"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_27pv73hr"},{"id":"cs_iih22mj4","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_iih22mj4","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-10.2019","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069 (CCPA 1972)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2125.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"d98721c30f8eeeafe1f2c00df1c173c0310854c0b529992758af69879389be0c"},"short_name":"In re Mraz","canonical_citation":"In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972)","all_citations":["455 F.2d 1069","173 USPQ 25"],"decision_year":1972,"court":"CCPA","holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null},{"id":"cs_3ilhx7wo","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_3ilhx7wo","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-10.2019","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Jockmus v. Leviton, 28 F.2d 812 (2d Cir. 1928)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2125.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"d98721c30f8eeeafe1f2c00df1c173c0310854c0b529992758af69879389be0c"},"short_name":"Jockmus v. Leviton","canonical_citation":"Jockmus v. Leviton, 28 F.2d 812 (2d Cir. 1928)","all_citations":["28 F.2d 812"],"decision_year":1928,"court":"2d Cir.","holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null},{"id":"cs_fqhwizco","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_fqhwizco","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-10.2019","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911 (CCPA 1979)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2125.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"d98721c30f8eeeafe1f2c00df1c173c0310854c0b529992758af69879389be0c"},"short_name":"In re Aslanian","canonical_citation":"In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979)","all_citations":["590 F.2d 911","200 USPQ 500"],"decision_year":1979,"court":"CCPA","holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null},{"id":"cs_rwa6otb3","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_rwa6otb3","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-10.2019","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Group Int’l, 222 F.3d 951 (Fed. Cir. 2000)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2125.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"d98721c30f8eeeafe1f2c00df1c173c0310854c0b529992758af69879389be0c"},"short_name":"Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Group Int’l","canonical_citation":"Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Group Int’l, 222 F.3d 951, 55 USPQ2d 1487 (Fed. Cir. 2000)","all_citations":["222 F.3d 951","55 USPQ2d 1487"],"decision_year":2000,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null},{"id":"cs_har3auni","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_har3auni","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-10.2019","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Wright, 569 F.2d 1124 (CCPA 1977)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2125.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"d98721c30f8eeeafe1f2c00df1c173c0310854c0b529992758af69879389be0c"},"short_name":"In re Wright","canonical_citation":"In re Wright, 569 F.2d 1124, 193 USPQ 332 (CCPA 1977)","all_citations":["569 F.2d 1124","193 USPQ 332"],"decision_year":1977,"court":"CCPA","holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null},{"id":"se_rmvy36jy","node_type":"section","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/se_rmvy36jy","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-10.2019","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s2125.html","source_anchor":"stub-2121","source_sha256":"d98721c30f8eeeafe1f2c00df1c173c0310854c0b529992758af69879389be0c"},"akn_urn":"/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_2121","canonical_url":"https://mpep.io/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_2121","section_number":"2121","chapter":"2100","depth":0,"title":"Section 2121","children_ids":[]}],"edges":[{"id":"e_xyuscmmf","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_37ixqomo","target_id":"cs_iih22mj4","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972)","source_offset":{"start":97,"end":107},"proposition":"drawings anticipate claims if they clearly show the claimed structure"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2125.html","source_anchor":"d0e202155","source_sha256":"d98721c30f8eeeafe1f2c00df1c173c0310854c0b529992758af69879389be0c"}},{"id":"e_ab5igjjn","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_37ixqomo","target_id":"cs_3ilhx7wo","properties":{"citation_text":"Jockmus v. Leviton, 28 F.2d 812 (2d Cir. 1928)","source_offset":{"start":247,"end":265},"proposition":"reference picture must show all claimed structural features and how they fit together"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2125.html","source_anchor":"d0e202155","source_sha256":"d98721c30f8eeeafe1f2c00df1c173c0310854c0b529992758af69879389be0c"}},{"id":"e_4b3jpx3p","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_37ixqomo","target_id":"cs_fqhwizco","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979)","source_offset":{"start":714,"end":728},"proposition":"drawings evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2125.html","source_anchor":"d0e202155","source_sha256":"d98721c30f8eeeafe1f2c00df1c173c0310854c0b529992758af69879389be0c"}},{"id":"e_uf4nacvu","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_37ixqomo","target_id":"se_rmvy36jy","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP § 2121.04","target_anchor":"d0e201980","source_offset":{"start":774,"end":788}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2125.html","source_anchor":"d0e202155","source_sha256":"d98721c30f8eeeafe1f2c00df1c173c0310854c0b529992758af69879389be0c"}},{"id":"e_gg2hm4xj","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_urwvhe7a","target_id":"cs_rwa6otb3","properties":{"citation_text":"Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Group Int’l, 222 F.3d 951, 956, 55 USPQ2d 1487, 1491 (Fed. Cir. 2000)","source_offset":{"start":180,"end":201},"pincite":"956","parenthetical":"patent drawings do not define precise proportions where the specification is silent on the issue","proposition":"drawings not relied on to show particular sizes when specification is silent as to scale"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2125.html","source_anchor":"d0e202174","source_sha256":"d98721c30f8eeeafe1f2c00df1c173c0310854c0b529992758af69879389be0c"}},{"id":"e_x2rivjmq","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_urwvhe7a","target_id":"cs_har3auni","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Wright, 569 F.2d 1124, 1127-28, 193 USPQ 332, 335-36 (CCPA 1977)","source_offset":{"start":742,"end":754},"pincite":"1127-28","proposition":"described article, with drawings, may be relied on for what it reasonably teaches"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2125.html","source_anchor":"d0e202174","source_sha256":"d98721c30f8eeeafe1f2c00df1c173c0310854c0b529992758af69879389be0c"}}]}}