Appeal No. 1997-0842
Application No. 08/305,588
appellant avoids problems that will lead to degradation of the
claimed superconducting composite.
As evidence of obviousness, the examiner relies on the
following prior art:
Satek et al. (Satek) 4,975,413 Dec. 4,
1990
Claims 8 through 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over the disclosure of Satek.
We reverse.
Satek describes the claimed superconducting composite
described in the preamble of Japson claim 11. Contrary to the
examiner’s argument, however, Satek does not teach, nor would
have suggested, the claimed improvement relating to forming a
gap between the claimed superconducting sleeve layer and the
claimed fiber or any intermediate layers, which it surrounds,
to accommodate its contraction at the operating temperature of
the superconducting composite. In other words, the examiner
has not established that Satek teaches or would have suggested
the claimed “non-adherent” superconducting mixed oxide sleeve
layer. Accordingly, we reverse the examiner’s decision
rejecting claims 8 through 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007