Appeal No. 1996-0796
Application No. 08/097,662
rubber liners are functionally equivalent.
On this record, we do not agree with the examiner that it
would have prima facie obvious to substitute the silicone
rubber liner used in a closed bomb device with the ceramic
liner described in Nakamura or Hartsock. As acknowledged by
the examiner (Answer, page 4), both Nakamura and Hartsock are
directed to using a ceramic liner in an internal combustion
engine, rather than a closed bomb device. Both Nakamura and
Hartsock do not teach that the ceramic liner is useful for a
closed bomb device. See Nakamura and Hartsock in their
entirety. Nor do they teach that the ceramic liner is
equivalent to the silicone rubber liner. Id. Although the
examiner recognizes that both a closed bomb device and an
internal combustion engine involve combustion, the examiner
has not demonstrated that the conditions under which a closed
bomb device are subjected are identical or substantially
identical to those of an internal combustion engine. See
Answer in its entirety. The examiner simply fails to prove
that the ceramic liner, useful for an internal combustion
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007