Appeal 2007-0973
Application 10/254,835
Bowers, because of the relative dimensions shown in the drawing, figure-8
antenna 38 and loop antenna 12 are not of the proper relative size and
positioning to minimize the sum of mutual inductances. (Br. 10-11.)
Appellants seem to answer their own argument, however, with the
acknowledgement that patent drawings are generally presumed to “not be in
scale.” (Id. at 11.) Appellants do not show that Bowers’ Figure 4 is
intended to be drawn to scale. Appellants are correct to the extent that
conclusions based on the dimensions and relative arrangements of the
antennae of Figure 4 are of little value. 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.”); In re Wilson, 312 F.2d 449, 454, 136 USPQ
188, 192 (CCPA 1963) (“Patent drawings are not working drawings [and
arguments are not persuasive when based on a] drawing obviously never
intended to show the dimensions of anything.”). We thus find the argument
based on the configuration depicted in Figure 4 to be untenable.
Appellants also submit that the reference at column 9, lines 14
through 23 refers to Figure 4 as the top and bottom loops 42, 44 of the
figure-8 loop element 38 being shown as generally equal in area, but they
need not be of equal area. According to Appellants, this says nothing about
areas of mutual inductance between antenna 12 and antenna 38 which are
affected by the location of antenna 21 relative to antenna 38. (Br. 11-12.)
The referenced section of Bowers also teaches, however, that providing
loops of equal areas aids in cancelling far field coupling.
Moreover, the Examiner also relies on material in column 5 of
Bowers, discussing mutual magnetic coupling between antenna elements, as
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013