Appeal No. 2002-1416
Application No. 09/146,519
and layers "may be subjected to suitably controlled pressures" by
filling the pressure vessel with gas and (column 6, lines 21-23)
that the pressure must be maintained for a "sufficiently long"
time. As pointed out by appellant (Brief, page 6), an explosive
force is a brief, high velocity force, not a controlled
"sufficiently long" pressure.
The examiner asserts (Answer, page 3) that the high
pressures and the use of reactive gases in Dobson indicate that
the force obtained by Dobson "would correspond to an explosive
force." However, high pressure does not require an explosive
force, and Dobson does not suggest that the reactive gases
explode.
The examiner states that the explosive force is "inherent in
Dobson." However, the examiner has failed to provide any
evidence that the explosive force is inevitable in Dobson. As
explained in Continental Can Co., U.S.A. v. Monsanto Co. ,
948 F.2d 1264, 1269, 20 USPQ2d 1746, 1749 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and
reproduced in Finnigan Corp. v. U.S. ITC, 180 F.3d 1354, 1365,
51 USPQ2d 1001, 1009 (Fed. Cir. 1999), "Inherency, however, may
not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007