Appeal No. 1999-2313
Application No. 08/396,288
argument and/or evidence. Obviousness is then determined
on the basis of the evidence as a whole and the relative
persuasiveness of the arguments. See Id.; In re Hedges,
783 F.2d 1038, 1039, 228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986);
In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788
(Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048,
1051-52, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976). Only those
arguments actually made by appellants have been
considered in this decision. Arguments which appellants
could have made but chose not to make in the brief have
not been considered (see 37 CFR § 1.192(a)).
We consider first the rejection of claims 45, 46 and
50 based on the teachings of Hidaka or Iwazumi. The
examiner notes that Hidaka and Iwazumi each teaches a
superconducting structure which differs from the claimed
invention by the specific orientation of the
superconductive copper oxide material and the means for
flowing current through the film. The examiner finds
these differences to be well known in the art, and the
examiner asserts that nothing unobvious is seen to have
been involved in making the claimed invention (answer,
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007