Appeal No. 2003-0423
Application No. 09/377,015
not relieved by Kinuta’s groove before the metal surrounding the
groove can bend outward to form swinging doors.
The examiner’s arguments require that the portions of the
explosion prevention safety device in Kinuta’s figure 5B outside
the groove inherently are capable of bending outward and forming
swinging doors when the battery explodes. The grooves in
Kinuta’s figures 5A and 5B may have the shown configurations,
rather than having a large rectangular configuration, for the
same reason that the appellant’s grooves have their particular
shape, i.e., to provide strength during normal operation while
providing a large, generally-rectangular opening for gas release
by outward bending of the portions surrounding the grooves when
the battery explodes (specification, page 2, lines 16-23 and
page 7, lines 11-14). As indicated by the above discussion of
Kinuta, however, this is not a disclosed capability of Kinuta’s
explosion prevention safety device. Hence, it is merely a
possibility. An inherent characteristic must be inevitable, and
not merely a possibility or probability. See In re Oelrich, 666
F.2d 578, 581, 212 USPQ 323, 326 (CCPA 1981).
The examiner relies upon Takada only for a suggestion to use
Kinuta’s explosion prevention safety device on a recloseable
container (office action mailed June 12, 2001, paper no. 6,
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007