Appeal No. 1997-2856 Application 08/394,251 312 F.2d 449, 454, 136 USPQ 188, 192 (CCPA 1963) ("Patent drawings not working drawings ... [and arguments are not persuasive when based on a] drawing obviously never intended to show the dimensions of anything."); In re Wright, 569 F.2d 1124, 1127, 193 USPQ 332, 335 (CCPA 1977) ("[Applicant] does not disclose that his drawings are to scale. Absent any written description in the specification of quantitative values, arguments based on measurement of a drawing are of little value."). It is often the case that elements of the drawing are exaggerated in one or more dimensions to emphasize the salient features of the invention. This does not interfere with identifying what the drawing depicts. Although not argued by Appellant, the limitation that the distance between adjacent cylindrical sections is not larger than half the dimension across either of the cylindrical sections is found in original claim 19 of the application as filed. Thus, there is express written description support without need to resort to the drawings. The Examiner errs as to this limitation. The rejection of claims 19-21 and 26-31 for this limitation is reversed. - 9 -Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007