Appeal 2006-3236
Inter Partes Reexamination Control No. 95/000,006
the surfaces 70. The face 69.7 cannot be the "second wall surface" because
it is not "extending . . . from" the first wall surface. If the component 12 is
twisted, it is not certain whether it is capable of touching surface 70.
Requester's argument that the component can touch the walls is unpersuasive
because it requires reading too much into the drawings. See In re Wright,
569 F.2d 1124, 1127, 193 USPQ 332, 335 (CCPA 1977) ("Absent any
written description in the specification of quantitative values, arguments
based on measurement of a drawing are of little value."). The mere fact that
the surfaces 70 extend above the top of the component 12 does not necessary
imply that they will operate to limit horizontal movement. It is our
responsibility to resolve disputed facts, and we find that the evidence does
not show that Figure 7 of Brahmbhatt discloses a "second wall surface . . . to
limit horizontal movement of the semiconductor integrated circuit device."
The Examiner also found that the surfaces 70 do not limit horizontal
movement of the rectangular device shown in Brahmbhatt, but found that
Brahmbhatt would limit horizontal movement of an "appropriately shaped"
device. We disagree with the Examiner's reasoning about an "appropriately
shaped" device. The Examiner does not explain what kind of device would
be "appropriately shaped," but the term implies a device that is designed to
be limited in horizontal movement by the structure in Figure 7. The rejection
is based on anticipation, not obviousness. Inherency cannot be based on
speculation or possibilities. See Oelrich, 666 F.2d at 581, 212 USPQ at 326.
- 29 -
Page: Previous 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013