Appeal No. 2002-0405
Application No. 07/325,269
Claims 19/6 - 19/8
Wu teaches superconducting compounds containing copper
(claim 19/6), barium (claim 19/7), and lanthanum (claim 19/8).
There would be no reason to expect that the claimed compounds
would differ from those of Wu (see, supra, pp. 9-10), and claims
19/6 - 19/8 are anticipated by, or obvious over, Wu.
Claims 22-24
Wu discloses superconducting compositions represented by the
formula (La1-x-Bax)CuO3-* wherein x=0.20 or 0.15 (Wu, p. 908, col.
1) as well as “a stable and reproducible superconductivity
transition” in compositions having the formula (Y1-x-Bax)2CuO4-y
(Wu, p. 908, abstract and col. 1).16 Wu further discloses that
Ba may be replaced by Sr (claim 24) in the La-Ba-Cu-O system.
Wu, p. 908, col. 1. Accordingly, there would be no reason to
expect that the claimed compounds would differ from those of Wu
(see, supra, pp. 9-10), and claims 22 - 24 are anticipated by, or
obvious over, Wu.
16In the Appeal Brief (p. 6), appellants assert that the
superconductors of claims 22-24 have superior properties compared to
the superconductors described in Hor (the same compounds disclosed in
Wu, see, supra, note 4) because Hor obtained multiphase samples and
Hor utilized a solid-state method, rather than a sol-gel process to
prepare the superconductors. This argument is without merit since
claims 22-24 are not limited to single-phase superconductors or “sol-
gel derived” superconductors. See In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 1072-73,
173 USPQ 25, 28 (CCPA 1972).
15
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007