Appeal No. 2000-0583
Application No. 08/955,984
failed to meet the burden of proving that Levy’s balloon is
not the same as appellants’ claimed balloon.
Appellants urge that they have shown by the examples in
their specification that the addition of a drying step does
have an effect on the characteristics of a balloon made from a
thermoplastic material in a method similar otherwise to Levy
(brief, page 8; reply brief, page 3). We have reviewed the
examples in appellants’ specification and note that none of
the balloons produced and tested was Levy’s balloon. For
example, all of the balloons tested in Examples 1-3 were made
from a PET having a lower intrinsic viscosity than the
starting PET material of Levy. Additionally, the wall
thickness of each of the balloons tested was on the order of
.015 mm, while the wall thicknesses of Levy’s balloons were
approximately 2-3 times as large (column 2, lines 65-67).
Further, the balloons in Examples 1 and 2 and Example 3 were
subjected to expansion pressures of 260 psi and 180 psi,
respectively, as compared with the 200 psi applied in making
Levy’s balloon. The balloons in Examples 4-10 were subjected
to a programmed dip cycle using different pressures and
tensions for blowing different portions of the balloon, while
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007