Appeal No. 2004-2071
Application No. 09/893,109
The examiner’s reliance on the drawings of the Japanese
reference to support a finding that elastic roller 16 has a width
and thickness which fall within the ratio ranges specified in
claim 1 is not well taken. In this regard, the Japanese
reference does not describe any quantitative values for these
parameters or indicate that the drawings are to scale. It is
well established that patent drawings do not define the precise
proportions of elements depicted therein and may not be relied on
to show particular sizes if the underlying specification does not
describe quantitative values or indicate that the drawings are to
scale. Hockerson-Halberstadt Inc. v. Avia Group International
Inc., 222 F.3d 951, 956, 55 USPQ2d 1487, 1491 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
Nonetheless, the fair teachings of the Japanese reference do
support the examiner’s conclusion that a roller chain meeting the
elastic roller width and thickness parameters set forth in claim
1 would have been obvious within the meaning of § 103(a).
More particularly, the Japanese reference teaches that the
axial width of the rigid roller, and hence the complementary
axial width of the elastic roller, are result effective variables
with respect to durability. Although the reference does not
expressly teach that the thickness of the elastic roller is a
result effective variable with respect to noise suppression, a
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007