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 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007