Appeal No. 2000-1060 Application No. 09/030,378 use only a small air jet angle as shown in Aindow’s figure 5 (item 152), and would not use an angle of 30-80º as recited in the appellants’ claim 6. Specifically, the appellants argue that the fact that Aindow’s rollers are round rather than elliptical indicates that Aindow’s drawings are at least roughly proportional, horizontal- to-vertical (request, page 3). Round circles, however, are what1 are drawn using a draftsman’s compass or template. The fact that the circles are round does not mean that the components of the apparatus, the distances between components, or the angle of the air jet with respect to the web surface, are drawn to scale. Aindow does not disclose the air jet angle in the specification, and “[a]bsent any written description in the specification of quantitative values, arguments based on measurement of a drawing are of little value.” In re Wright, 569 F.2d 1124, 1127, 193 USPQ 332, 335 (CCPA 1977). In Wright, wherein a reference did not disclose that the drawings are to scale, the court rejected the solicitor’s argument that the reference pointed to a distance 1The appellants also argue generally that most drawings are at least roughly proportional, horizontal-to-vertical (reply, page 3), but provide no support for this argument. 3Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007