The case involves the disclosure of the contents of the evidence in the patent administrative litigation. The judgment of Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People's Court held that although the four grooves provided in the core element shown in the drawings of the Proof No. 5 are slightly curved in visual effect, but the shape and function of the structure was not described therein, and a?person skilled in the art cannot get?technical teaching?about the?spiral groove?from it. Beijing Higher People's Court ruled that the contents speculated in the accompanying drawings, or without written description, are only the dimensions measured from the drawings and their relations and should not be regarded as disclosed. However, the?related?technical contents that a person?skilled in the art can readily and unambiguously derive?from?the accompanying drawings, description of the specification, and the common general knowledge in the art?can be regarded as?contents disclosed in the specification. According to the patent specification, the function or effect of the technical feature of "the helical groove on the oil nozzle core" in the disputed patent is to make the air flow generate a cyclone to form a negative pressure. Evidence 5 of the specification states that the "four grooves in the core element" serve to "create a rotating air flow". According to common general knowledge in the art, creating a rotating air stream creates a negative pressure. As one skilled in the art can determine, the function of the groove is the same as the "spiral groove" of claim 2 of this patent. In addition, the recess shown in FIG. 6 of Evidence 5 is slightly curved visually similar to a helical groove, from which a person skilled in the art can derive a technical teaching of?providing?a helical groove on the nozzle body.
Accordingly, Beijing Higher People's Court ruled that the judgment of first instance of Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People's Court should be revoked.
?
