Appeal 2007-2206
Application 10/181,977
Roussel’s Figure 7 appears to have sharply creased edges which are
impinged upon by the cellulose wadding and rubber cylinder Cī, Roussel
discloses that “the cellulose wadding, since it has been creped, has a certain
level of elastic recovery after the constraint exerted by the rubber cylinder is
removed” (Roussel 19). Thus, despite the apparently sharp edges of the
embossing surface of the steel cylinder, we agree with the Examiner that it is
reasonable to conclude that all of Roussel’s background embossments have
the rounded edges shown in Roussel’s Figure 8b, because of the elasticity in
the cellulose wadding.
Appellant argues that it is improper to rely on “numerical
measurement of unscaled drawings” and that Figures 2 and 4 are too
ambiguous to be considered anticipatory disclosures (Br. 12-13; see also
Reply Br. 7-8). Rather, Appellant argues, Figures 6 and 7 and the
underlying discussion in Roussel provide a clear disclosure “that, when
Roussel et al. meant to indicate the impact of the particular shape or
configuration of particular elements in the drawings, it did so with express
recitation in the specification to avoid ambiguity” (Br. 13).
We are not persuaded by this argument. We agree that “it is well
established that patent drawings do not define the 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, 222 F.3d 951, 956, 55 USPQ2d 1487, 1491 (Fed. Cir.
2000).
However, rather than being mere drawings, Roussel’s Figures 8a and
8b are “two photos of cross sections of samples made according to the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013