Appeal 2007-0127
Application 09/749,916
1 6-8). We are not informed what “modeled” means, or how the model
2 affected the reported data. Was some data extrapolated? Or is all the data
3 actual test results? The first few sentences of paragraph 2 of the declaration
4 imply the latter, but the ambiguity in drafting the declaration leaves us in
5 doubt and therefore we do not give this paragraph significant weight.
6 Second, Mr. Hubacek has not testified that these results were
7 unexpected or surprising. We are not informed that a thicker electrode
8 would not routinely have been expected to have a better thermal distribution
9 because of, for example, its greater mass. (See, e.g. Uwai, col. 4, ll. 27-36).
10 Nor are we informed what would have been the expected temperature
11 gradient. Without knowing what was expected, we cannot assess the
12 credibility of a statement that a given result was unexpected.
13 Third, the significance of the curves is unexplained. Was significant
14 data analyzed and the distribution of results plotted to make a curve? Or do
15 the curves simply connect four points, which may be actual data or modeled
16 data? As there are only four points on the graph, we wonder whether the
17 data could best be represented by a straight line. Consequently, we view the
18 graphs with a degree of skepticism.
19 Finally, there are unexplained variables which have not been resolved
20 in sufficient detail for us to credit this part of the declaration. For example,
21 we have not been given any information on the significance of the
22 differences in the numbers of the gas passages. We are not informed why a
23 different number of passages were used and what effect this would have on
24 the results. Also, we are not clearly informed whether the electrodes were
25 used as intended, e.g., actually used in a plasma process, or whether a more
18
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013