Appeal No. 94-0105
Application 07/854,124
C.T. Rogers et al. (Rogers), “Fabrication of
Heteroepitaxial YBa Cu O -PrBa Cu O -YBa Cu O Josephson Device
2 3 7-x 2 3 7-x 2 3 7-x
Grown by Laser Deposition,” 55 Appl. Phys. Lett., no. 15,
2031-2034 (1989)
J. Gao et al. (Gao), “Controlled Preparation of all High-
T SNS-Type Edge Junctions and DC SQUIDs,” 171 Physica C, 126-
c
130 (1990)
The claims on appeal stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as follows : 2
Claims 1, 2, 4 and 5 are rejected over Gao;
Claims 3, 6 and 7 are rejected over the combined
disclosures of Gao and Rogers;
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected over the combined disclosures
of Gao, Rogers, and Koren.
Appellant has presented separate arguments for the
patentability of claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8 and 9. Brief, Paper No.
2This appeal reaches the Board pursuant: a Brief (Paper
No. 12); an Examiner’s Answer (Paper No. 13); an amendment
(Paper No. 14) and Reply Brief (Paper No. 15); a Supplemental
Answer (Paper No. 16); a remand by the Board (Paper No. 17); a
“Revised Examiner’s Answer” (Paper No. 18); a Reply Brief,
incorporating the previous briefs by reference, and including
an amended claim (Paper No. 19); a “Second Examiner’s Answer,”
(amended claim denied entry: Paper No. 20); a Reply Brief
(Paper No. 21); and a “Supplemental Examiner’s Answer” (Paper
No. 22). The rejections on appeal are set out in Paper No. 18
at pages 3 through 6.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007