Appeal No. 1996-2637
Application No. 08/190,566
applied prior art references recognize the importance of using
the claimed distance L for the claimed mating gap width.
The examiner refers to the drawings of both Bielfeldt and
Dannels to show that both Bielfeldt and Dannels inherently
employ the claimed distance L. See the Answer, page 7. The
examiner measures distance “L” from the above-mentioned
drawings through extrapolation. Id. However, we find that
the measurement of the drawings in question are of little
value since there is no indication that these drawings are
drawn to scale. In re Chitayat, 408 F.2d 475, 161 USPQ 224
(CCPA 1969)(arguments based on mere measurement of patent
drawings are of little value in the absence of description in
the specification of relative dimensions); In re Olson, 212
F.2d 590, 592-93, 101 USPQ 401, 402-03 (CCPA 1954)(patent
drawings are generally regarded as schematic drawings which
are not drawn to scale and which have dimension not precisely
defined). It then follows that the examiner has failed to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness within the meaning
of 35 U.S.C. § 103. Accordingly, we reverse the examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 4 through 11, 13 and 14 under 35
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007