Dans Skedco v. Strategic Operations (StOps), la ‘United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’ a confirmé la capacité des demandeurs de revendiquer des éléments non montrés par dessins dans une demande de brevet:

“[I]t is the claims, not the written description, which define the scope of the patent right.� Laitram Corp v. NEC Corp., 163 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Patents do not need to include drawings of particular embodiments in order to claim them. See CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2002). For this reason, a claim is not limited to inventions looking like those in the drawings. MBO Labs., Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 474 F.3d 1323, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2007). This guidance is especially apt here because the patent refers to the drawings to which StOps points as “exemplary embodiment[s].�

Federal Court of Appeal – Wenzel Downhole Tools Ltd. v. National-Oilwell Canada Ltd.

« Being available for consultation is not the same as disclosing information. « 

« …information cannot be deemed to have been available to the public unless it is established by positive evidence that it was indeed conveyed to the public by some form of communication.