Appeal No. 1998-0180 Application No. 08/471,309 the reference. The argument which comes closest to the terms of the rejection appears on pages 203 and 21 of the Brief (nominally in response to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103), wherein appellant speaks of coaxial waveguides 58 and 60. In any event, we will assume that those arguments were presented to be responsive to the instant rejection -- anticipation in view of waveguides 54 and 56. 4 Appellant contends first that if the coaxial waveguides in Figure 7 of Liu had “approximately the same” dispersion, as required by Claim 1, then the radii would not have the relative dimensions as shown in the figure, but would have, based upon appellant’s calculations, the relative dimensions as shown in Figure A5 appended to the Brief. (See Brief, page 20 and 21.) However, as the examiner correctly points out (see Answer, page 12), Figure 7 of Liu cannot be considered as representative of the actual relative dimensions of the waveguide radii. The figures are not disclosed as being drawn to scale, and conclusions cannot be drawn based on the drawings alone. See In re Wright, 569 F.2d 1124, 1127, 193 USPQ 332, 335 (CCPA 1977) ("Absent any written description in the specification of quantitative values, arguments based on measurement of a drawing are of little value.”); In re Wilson, 312 F.2d 449, 454, 136 USPQ 188, 192 (CCPA 1963) ("Patent drawings are not working drawings 3In this regard, we note that the bulk of appellant’s arguments in the Brief and Reply Brief are based on the assumption that Figure 7 of Liu discloses a circular waveguide within a coaxial waveguide, which is not germane to the second interpretation. 4Appellant acknowledges the examiner’s interpretation on pages 7 and 8 of the Reply Brief, but returns to arguments concerning hollow waveguides. - 6 -Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007