Ex parte LEWIS et al. - Page 7




          Appeal No. 2001-0373                                        Page 7           
          Application No. 09/122,255                                                   


          port multiplied by its average distance from the spool does not              
          substantially exceed the smallest annular cross-sectional area               
          between the spool and the seat" (the "extent limitation").                   


               The position of the examiner as set forth in the rejections             
          before us in this appeal (final rejection, pp. 2-3) is that claims 1         
          to 4 are anticipated by either the valve shown in Figure 2 of Harris         
          or the valve shown in Figure 2 of Sorenson since the "extent                 
          limitation" was met by either valve.  In the answer (pp. 3-4), the           
          examiner set forth measurements taken from Figure 2 of Harris using          
          an engineering scale ruler.  From those measurements the examiner            
          calculated that the "extent limitation" was met by the valve shown in        
          Figure 2 of Harris.  With respect to Sorenson the examiner declared          
          that it is obvious that the "extent limitation" was met by the valve         
          shown in Figure 2.                                                           


               We find the examiner's position to be without merit.  First, it         
          is well-settled that patent drawings are not drawn to scale and              
          accordingly, an examiner's argument based upon measurement of the            
          patent drawings are of little value.  See In re Chitayat, 408 F.2d           
          475, 478, 161 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1969); In re Wright, 569 F.2d 1124,        







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007