Appeal No. 94-2527
Application 07/816,715
Claims 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over the
above noted references and further in view of Yoshitake and Japanese ‘934.
We refer to the several Briefs and to the several Answers filed in the 1993
through 1994 time frame for a complete exposition of the opposing viewpoints
expressed by the appellants and the examiner concerning the above noted rejections.3
For the reasons which follow, we will not sustain these rejections.
The examiner acknowledges that “Qui et al or Masuda et al do not disclose:
(1) uniaxially compressing the powder mixture at a temperature of between Tg and Tx”
but argues that, “when desiring to form an oriented superconductor oxide composite, it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the cold-
pressing in Qui et al’s or Matsuda et al’s process by hot-pressing as suggested by
JP63-310,764" (Answer, page 4; emphasis in original). We cannot agree.
While we appreciate that Japanese ‘764 teaches hot-pressing superconductor
material or a precursor thereof in order to form an oriented superconductor, we find no
disclosure (and the examiner points to none) in this reference concerning the uniaxial
3On December 17, 1997, the appellants filed Paper No. 24 entitled
“SUBMISSION OF COMMENTS RE TRANSLATION OF JP ’764 REFERENCE.”
Consistent with Board policy, we have not considered this paper since it has not yet
been considered by the examiner. Moreover, our disposition of the subject appeal is
such that we need not remand the application to the examiner for his consideration of
the aforementioned paper.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007