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, 9Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007