Appeal No. 2003-0423
Application No. 09/377,015
The examiner argues that the thicknesses of the appellant’s
exemplified panel and groove are, respectively, 0.032" (813 :m)
and 0.009" (229 :m), which is a ratio of 3.6 (specification,
page 7, lines 9-11), whereas the thicknesses of Kinuta’s
exemplified panel and groove are, respectively, 50:m and 10-
20 :m, which is a ratio of 2.5 to 5 (answer, pages 5-6). This
comparison, the examiner argues, indicates that Kinuta provides a
means for forming outwardly swinging doors. See id. This
argument is not well taken because the examiner has not
established that the capability of forming swinging doors depends
solely on the relative thickness of the panel and groove, rather
than also depending on other factors such as the width of the
groove and the material of construction of the panel.
The examiner argues that “the device does not have to blow
anywhere but along floor 3 to form a pair of outwardly swinging
doors. Specifically, the part of the device adjacent to each
side of the groove provides a means of bending outwards to form
the ‘swinging doors’” (answer, page 5). The examiner, however,
has not established that the pressure in the exploding battery is
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007