Appeal No. 2004-0760
Application No. 10/010,392
Young’s modulus (i.e., modulus of elasticity), and (2) the
Young’s modulus of the balance plate is greater than the Young’s
modulus of the flexible substrate because the balance plate may
be made of copper or aluminum and the flexible substrate may be
made of epoxy board or a polyimide.
Neither of these prongs in the examiner’s analysis stands up
under careful review of the Maheshwari disclosure.
To begin with, it is well established that patent drawings
do not define the precise proportions of the elements shown
therein and may not be relied on to show particular sizes if the
specification is completely silent on the issue. Hockerson-
Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Group Int'l, 222 F.3d 951, 956,
55 USPQ2d 1487, 1491 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Maheshwari’s
specification contains no indication that the flexible substrate
and the balance plate have the same thickness or that Figure
6 accurately portrays these elements in terms of their relative
thickness. Indeed, Figures 2, 3e and 4 depict these same
elements as having significantly different thicknesses, thereby
undermining the examiner’s reliance on Figure 6 in this regard.
Hence, Figure 6, considered in light of the Maheshwari reference
as a whole, does not fairly teach that the flexible substrate and
the balance plate have the same thickness, and consequently lends
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007