Appeal No. 96-1353
Application 07/696,973
available to one of ordinary skill in the art and not from the
appellant's disclosure. See, for example, Uniroyal, Inc. v.
Rudkin-Wiley Corp., 837 F.2d 1044, 1052, 5 USPQ2d 1434, 1052
(Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 825 (1988).
Claim 1, the sole independent claim, recites a method of
preparing an adherent superconducting oxide coating. The steps
include combining the elements to form an alloy, melting it,
depositing it on a substrate by “melt writing” as the substrate 2
is moved to create a pattern, and oxidizing the patterned
substrate. The examiner's opinion is that Jasper discloses all
of the claimed subject matter except for “the method as claimed
by Appellant [sic].” However, it is his view that Ashok teaches
the claimed manner of oxidizing the precursor superconducting
alloy and MacKay teaches the claimed step of “melt writing,” and
he has taken the position that it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art to modify the Jasper method to meet
the terms of claim 1 (Answer, page 3). The appellants argue that
there would have been no suggestion to combine the references in
2Our understanding of the phrase “melt writing” is that it
is the forming of a pattern upon a substrate by moving a nozzle
and the substrate with respect to one another as molten material
issues from the nozzle. See specification, page 2.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007