Appeal No. 2001-0373 Page 7
Application No. 09/122,255
port multiplied by its average distance from the spool does not
substantially exceed the smallest annular cross-sectional area
between the spool and the seat" (the "extent limitation").
The position of the examiner as set forth in the rejections
before us in this appeal (final rejection, pp. 2-3) is that claims 1
to 4 are anticipated by either the valve shown in Figure 2 of Harris
or the valve shown in Figure 2 of Sorenson since the "extent
limitation" was met by either valve. In the answer (pp. 3-4), the
examiner set forth measurements taken from Figure 2 of Harris using
an engineering scale ruler. From those measurements the examiner
calculated that the "extent limitation" was met by the valve shown in
Figure 2 of Harris. With respect to Sorenson the examiner declared
that it is obvious that the "extent limitation" was met by the valve
shown in Figure 2.
We find the examiner's position to be without merit. First, it
is well-settled that patent drawings are not drawn to scale and
accordingly, an examiner's argument based upon measurement of the
patent drawings are of little value. See In re Chitayat, 408 F.2d
475, 478, 161 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1969); In re Wright, 569 F.2d 1124,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007