Appeal No. 1998-1917
Application No. 08/766,984
sheathed superconducting wires of Kikuchi, the resulting
combination of Kikuchi and Sato would, therefore, meet all the
requirements of independent claim 1. The fact that Sato has
no disclosure which indicates a recognition of differing
thermal contraction rates of the Teflon insulating tape and
the superconducting wires, or any indication of a desire to
take advantage of such differing thermal contraction rates to
achieve wire to former binding, does not mitigate against
Sato’s clear suggestion to the skilled artisan to use Teflon
tape to provide a necessary bond between wires and former.
The fact that Appellant has recognized another advantage which
would flow naturally from the suggestions of the prior art,
i.e. that the higher thermal contraction rate of the Teflon
insulating tape would exert pressure on the superconducting
wires toward the former, cannot be the basis for patentability
when the differences would otherwise be obvious. Ex parte
Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
In view of the above discussion, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 rejection of independent claim 1, as well as dependent
claims 3 and 6 which fall with claim 1, is sustained. The
obviousness rejection of dependent claim 4 is sustained as
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007