inherently described in the proposed benefit applications. PaWs arguments on inherency essentially
parallel those made in PaWs motion forjudgment against Mengal's claims. Par6's motion fails to
set out a prima facie case for substantially the same reasons.
With respect of Example 2 of the Par6 application, Par6 employs the following logic: (1) a
person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the "microwave oven" and the
.,microwave applicator" mentioned inApplications 08/327,638 and 08/012,475 was a "conventional
microwave oven"; (2) conventional microwave ovens supply microwave energy in pulses, i.e., in
on- and off-cycles during treatment; (3) the pulses will result in heating of the sample and the
surrounding gas during the on-cycle and the sample and the surrounding gas will cool during the off
cycle; (4) the ideal gas law predicts that during the on-cycle the gas pressure will rise due to the
heating and during the off-cycle the pressure will fall as the gas cools; (5) therefore, the contents of
the container are exposed to cyclically and intermittently applied reduced pressure during the
application of microwave energy. Paper 41, pp. 4-5.
As with the Par6 patents, Par6 has not provided any evidence on how a person having
ordinary skill in the microwave extraction art would understand the Par6 applications. Thus, Par6
has not established that a person having ordinary skill in the art would necessarily understand
"microwave oven" or "microwave applicator" to be a "conventional microwave oven." Par6 has also
not established that "a conventional microwave oven," a "Microwave oven," or a "Microwave
applicator" would necessarily operate in a pulsed mode. Even if the potential benefit applications
inherently disclosed treatment with microwave pulses, Par6 has not established that those pulses
would necessarily result in cyclically intermittently reduced pressure during the exposure to
microwaves as required by PaWs Claims 1 and 10 because Par6 has not established that the ideal
gas equation predicts the behavior of gases in the systems and conditions described in the Par6
applications.
With respect to the other portions of the Par6 applications disclosing the repeated microwave
treatments, this argument also depends on the applicability of the ideal gas equation. Par6 has not
demonstrated that the equation may be used to describe the behavior of the systems of the type
described in the applications. Thus, both applications include the description of a system in which
a solid or liquid matrix including volatilizable material is placed in a container sealed with a
-29-
Page: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007