Appeal No. 94-0105
Application 07/854,124
as a nonsuperconductor, whereas YBCO was recognized as a
“chameleon,” which could change back and forth between
superconducting and nonsuperconducting states. Paper No. 12,
page 14, lines 2-7. The examiner has failed to come forward
with evidence from the scientific and technical literature in
support of his position that PBCO and N-YBCO were recognized
as equivalents in the art: his position is merely speculation
as to what the art might have recognized. The
examiner’s argument in Paper No. 20, item 5, pages 2 to 3,
that superconductor YBCO was known at the time of appellant’s
invention to differ from N-YBCO “only in oxygen content” is
similarly without support on the present record. Indeed, our
review of the application file reveals only cautious
speculation
as to the composition and structure of N-YBCO in appellant’s
specification (page 9, line 16 through page 10, line 7). We
observe further that Agostinelli, of record and discussed in
more detail post, discloses at page 11,396, left column, a
nonsuperconducting YBCO material that differs in oxygen
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007