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 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007