Appeal No. 2000-0583
Application No. 08/955,984
Levy discloses blowing the entire balloon at the same pressure
and tension.
As appellants’ examples do not test Levy’s balloon, we
fail to appreciate how these examples can be construed as
establishing that Levy’s balloon is not the same as
appellants’ claimed invention. Even if appellants’ examples
were sufficient to establish that the addition of a drying
step after the extruding step and prior to the expansion step
has an effect on the characteristics of a balloon made from a
thermoplastic material under the conditions tested,
appellants’ examples are devoid of any evidence that the
addition of a drying step after extrusion and prior to
expansion would affect the characteristics of a balloon made
under different conditions, such as those disclosed by Levy.9
In any case, appellants have not persuaded us that Levy’s
balloon possesses characteristics which differ from those of a
balloon made by the method recited in appellants’ claim 1
(albeit perhaps using a starting PET material having a higher
moisture content prior to extrusion as compared with Levy or
We do not share appellants' view that this can simply be presumed9
(brief, page 8; reply brief, page 3).
14
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007