Appeal No. 2006-1546
Application No. 09/974,262
one component relative to the other is still accurate. (Brief,
pages 10-11). Appellants also indicate that, if a ruler is used
to measure the tear line widths and ridge widths in Figures 5,
7, 9A and 9B, then a range of approximate ridge widths results
(Figure 5: 4 mm, Figures 7 & 9A: 5 mm and Figure 9B: 7 mm).
According to Appellants, the measured widths of the tear lines
are relatively constant in Figures 5, 7, 9A and 9B (i.e.,)
(approximately 4.5 mm). (Reply Brief, page 2). These arguments
are unpersuasive.
Patent drawings do not define precise proportions of the
elements 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., Inc., 222 F.3d 951, 956,
55 USPQ2d 1487, 1491 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Also, absent any written
description in the specification of quantitative values,
arguments based on measurement of a drawing are of little value.
In re Wright, 59 F.2d 1124, 1127, 193 USPQ 332, 335 (C.C.P.A.
1977). See also, Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP)
§ 2125 (Rev. 3, August 2005).
Appellants concede that they have “never indicated that the
drawings are not drawn to scale. . . .” (Brief, page 10). More
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007