Appeal No. 1999-2114
Application 08/821,711
reference. Second, and more importantly,
there exists an arrow at the right end of
plate (7) in Figure 2, which indicates that
the plate is moving to the right, across
the upper surface of the molded article . .
. . The placement of the arrow in Figure 2
of the reference
. . . is in contrast to the placement of
the arrow in Figure 1 of the reference . .
. . The positioning of the arrow in the
drawings is clearly intended to demonstrate
that the plate (7) of Figure 1 is movable
(but stationary during the step
illustrated by Figure 1-as evidenced by the
arrow being spaced from the plate) to the
left from its position as illustrated in
Figure 1, while the plate of Figure 2 is
actively moving to the right across the top
of the . . . block . . . (as evidenced by
the arrow touching the plate, the plate
being off-center to the right, relative to
the compression chamber . . . . (Answer,
pages 5 and 6).
However, we cannot find any indication in BPS ‘215
that the drawings are drawn to scale or any description of the
dimensional arrangements between the lower plunger 3, upper
plunger 4 and gate 7. “[A]rguments based on measurement of a
drawing are of little value" absent written description in the
specification, of quantitative values. In re Wright, 569 F.2d
1124, 1127,
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007