Appeal No.1998-2486
Application No. 08/751,375
We agree with appellant’s general assertion that the drawings can provide support
for a claim just as can the specification. Proper support need not, necessarily, be found in
word descriptions only. However, each case must be analyzed in accordance with the
specifics of the individual case. In the instant case, our review of the drawings in the
instant case finds no support for appellant’s contention that original Figures 4 and 5 show
that the compressed thickness (Figure 5) is “at least approximately 50%” of the
uncompressed thickness (in Figure 4). The drawings, being of an informal nature as it is,
do not shimmer with clarity. In particular, there is no way to tell from the drawings that the
resilient material in Figure 4 has been compressed by “at least approximately 50%,” the
compressed state being shown in Figure 5. While at least some compression appears to
have taken place in Figure 5, the quantitative amount of that compression is not apparent
and cannot be determined, possibly due, at least in part, to the poor quality of the
drawings. Even the inexact nature of the claimed recitation, i.e., “at least approximately,”
does not help in finding such support in the drawings. While it may be true that at least
some compression can be seen in Figure 5, this is a far cry from finding that the
compression depicted is “at least approximately 50%,” as claimed. To say that “at least
approximately 50%” is the percentage
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007