Appeal No. 2001-0716
Application No. 08/813,132
which is defined by a distance g between two mutually facing
planar surfaces of the core components.
After careful review of the applied prior art references, in
light of the arguments of record, we are in general agreement
with Appellants’ position as stated in the Briefs. In addressing
Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner (Answer, page 4) directs
attention to the illustration in Figure 2 of House which
illustrates an air gap distance (corresponding to the claimed
dimension g) between the upper surface of center leg 15 and the
lower surface of member 30. Further, again referring to House’s
Figure 2, the Examiner points to the illustration of the distance
between the coil surfaces 25 and the air gap g which, although
the Examiner characterizes it as an “accidental disclosure,” the
Examiner nevertheless concludes (id.) that this distance “...
appears to be 2g or greater” as claimed.
While we agree with the Examiner (Answer, page 5) that a
reference is to be evaluated for all it fairly teaches, our
review of the House reference reveals, however, that no basis
exists for the Examiner’s conclusions. Conclusions based on
illustrated drawing features when the drawings are not to scale
and the disclosure is silent as to dimensions are of little
value. In re Wright, 569 F.2d 1124, 1128, 193 USPQ 332, 336
-6–6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007