Appeal No. 96-1701
Application 08/190,211
Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 14, and 15 stand rejected under 35 USC
§ 103 over Char in view of Mizuno, Tsukamoto, and Tsukada.
Claims 7 and 8 stand similarly rejected under the same section of
the statute further in view of Vasquez.
We reverse.
The subject matter on appeal is directed to a specific and
limited method for forming a Josephson junction device having a
tilt-boundary junction between a superconducting oxide film of a
Bi-Sr-Ca-Cu-O compound (referred to as BSCCO) on a magnesia
substrate and the same film (BSCCO) on a non-superconducting
oxide film of Bi-Sr-Cu-O (referred to as BSCO) deposited in a
pattern on the magnesia substrate. Each of the films must be
sequentially deposited. Thus, for the BSCO film, bismuth,
strontium, and copper are sequentially deposited in that order.
For the BSCCO film, bismuth, strontium, calcium, and copper are
sequentially deposited in that respective order.
We have carefully reviewed the prior art references relied
upon by the examiner and the examiner’s stated rejections based
on these references. Although the examiner’s position is not
without merit, we agree with appellants that the relied upon
prior art disclosures are insufficient to establish a prima facie
case of obviousness for the claimed subject matter. Hence we
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007