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.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007