C.F.R. » Title 37 » CHAPTER I—UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE › SUBCHAPTER A—GENERAL › PART 1—RULES OF PRACTICE IN PATENT CASES › Subpart B—National Processing Provisions

37 C.F.R. § 1.83

Content of drawing

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) The drawing in a nonprovisional application must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. However, conventional features disclosed in the description and claims, where their detailed illustration is not essential for a proper understanding of the invention, should be illustrated in the drawing in the form of a graphical drawing symbol or a labeled representation (e.g., a labeled rectangular box). In addition, tables that are included in the specification and sequences that are included in sequence listings should not be duplicated in the drawings.

(b) When the invention consists of an improvement on an old machine the drawing must when possible exhibit, in one or more views, the improved portion itself, disconnected from the old structure, and also in another view, so much only of the old structure as will suffice to show the connection of the invention therewith.

(c) Where the drawings in a nonprovisional application do not comply with the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, the examiner shall require such additional illustration within a time period of not less than two months from the date of the sending of a notice thereof. Such corrections are subject to the requirements of § 1.81(d).

[31 FR 12923, Oct. 4, 1966, as amended at 43 FR 4015, Jan. 31, 1978; 60 FR 20226, Apr. 25, 1995; 69 FR 56541, Sept. 21, 2004; 78 FR 62405, Oct. 21, 2013]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases, 1976–2019 · leading case: Pandrol Usa, Lp & Pandrol Ltd. v. Airboss Ry. Prods., Inc., Airboss of Am. Corp., Robert M. Magnuson, & Jose R. Mediavilla, 320 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Pandrol Usa, Lp & Pandrol Ltd. v. Airboss Ry. Prods., Inc., Airboss of Am. Corp., Robert M. Magnuson, & Jose R. Mediavilla, 320 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2003). · cites it 2× “During prosecution, the Patent Examiner initially objected to the drawings in the application under 37 C.F.R. § 1.83 (a), 2 because *1364 the drawings in the application did not include an illustration of the “adhering material.”
Ergo Licensing, LLC v. Carefusion 303, Inc., 673 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2012). · cites it 2× “As the specification states, the "present invention" is directed to the arrangement of components, of which the "control device" is a "conventional feature," depicted in accordance with PTO practice as set forth in PTO Rule 83: 37 C.F.R. § 1.83 Content of drawing. (a) The…”
The Toro Co. v. White Consol. Indus., Inc., & Wci Outdoor Prods., Inc., 199 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 1999). “Nor is the restriction ring shown other than attached to the cover. The specification states that the restricting ring is automatically inserted and removed by the cover to which it is attached, and illustrates only this structure in the drawings.”
Honeywell Int'l Inc. v. United States, 81 Fed. Cl. 224 (Fed. Cl. 2008). · cites it 2× “The drawings are objected under 37 CFR 1.83 in that every feature claimed must be shown.”
Katz v. AT & T Corp., 63 F. Supp. 2d 583 (E.D. Pa. 1999). “Second, the defendants argue that pursuant to the Code of Federal Regulations, if an aspect of the invention is represented in the figure as a rectangular box, it indicates that that aspect is not essential to the understanding of the invention, citing 37 C.F.R. § 1.83 (a).…”
In re Gunn, 537 F.2d 1123 (C.C.P.A. 1976). “Appellant also argues that the Solicitor’s position that it is prima facie reasonable to question block diagrams “flies directly in the face of [the admonition and direction of the Patent and Trademark Office] to all applicants to simplify the drawings wherever possible,” citing…”
Trilithic, Inc. v. Wavetek U.S., Inc., 64 F. Supp. 2d 816 (S.D. Ind. 1999). “37 C.F.R. § 1.83 . Trilithic does not have to specify what type of connector should be used.”
Momentus Golf, Inc. v. Swingrite Golf Corp., 312 F. Supp. 2d 1134 (S.D. Iowa 2004). “The drawings are objected to under 37 C.F.R. § 1.83 (a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims.”
Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Miracle Optics, Inc., 170 F. App'x 710 (Fed. Cir. 2006). · cites it 4× “Thus the Examiner expressly waived the requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 1.83 1 with respect to this feature.”
CAO Lighting, Inc. v. Light Efficient Design (N.D. Ill. 2019). · cites it 2× “The Court finds that Plaintiff has complied with both 37 C.F.R. § 1.83 (a) and the MPEP. Plaintiff included Figure 11, a drawing of the AC/DC converter.”
Epic Metals Corp. v. Consol. Sys., Inc., 19 F. Supp. 2d 1296 (M.D. Fla. 1998). “81 and 37 CFR 1.83.” June 29, 1992, Notice of Allowability.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.