here are my responses (below your questions)...no tip necessary and you are welcome...good luck
Does the assertion "inoperability" requires proof because it is a technical term that has a special meaning, like "comprising?" Is explaining it as a deficiency a workaround?
"inoperable" is a "term of art"...but my point is that if you say something disclosed in a publication "did not work" than you may have to "prove it" to the US Patent office.
And if you are incorrect...it could mean problems later on, including fraud on the patent office.
But you can point out what is "missing" from the other references that you have...ie deficiencies as you state below.
How far can an adversary go with obviousness? Could a solution, that none of the references teach, to correct the deficiency also be obvious, considering that just about everything is obvious in hindsight?
The Examiners are not supposed to use "hindsight" to reconstruct the invention
by picking and choosing elements of your invention from several references.
I apologize for the underpricing. I am a DIY filer with no patent education working on a shoestring budget. I usually post my more generic questions on the public newsgroups but I feel bad for not being able to compensate the responders for their kindness, and that's why I thought that Just Answer would be a place that is convenient for both parties.