Appeal No. 97-2621
Application 08/432,442
specific dimensions given in columns 6-7 of Chen’s disclosure.
But there is no basis for that assumption and the more
reasonable view is that Figure 2 is a generic diagram and the
exact dimensions and spacings between electrodes can be
whatever the specification permits, including the one
embodiment described from the bottom of column 6 to the top of
column 7. Consistent with our finding that Chen’s Figure 2
should not be read as specifically illustrating the particular
numbers set out in the disclosure from the bottom of column 7
to the top of column 8, is the fact that according to the
dimensions given in the disclosure the distance from G2b to G3
is at least 10 times the distance from G2a to G2b. As shown
in Figure 2, however, the distance from G2b to G3 is less than
the distance from G2a to G2b.
Having first erroneously assumed that the drawing in
Figure 2 must illustrate the dimensions given at the bottom of
column 6 to the top of column 7, the appellants then noticed
that the ratio of the various actual dimensions shown in
Figure 2 to the dimensions described from the bottom of column
6 to the top of column 7 are not always consistent. From
that, the appellants conclude that it must be Figure 2's shown
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007