Appeal No. 98-2457
Application No. 08/851,312
Rather than reiterate the examiner's full statement of
the above-noted rejection and the conflicting viewpoints
advanced by the examiner and appellants regarding the
rejection, we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper
No. 41, mailed April 17, 1998) for the examiner's reasoning in
support of the rejection, and to appellants’ brief (Paper No.
40, filed January 12, 1997) for appellants’ arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellants’ specification and claims,
to the applied prior art references, and to the respective
positions articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we have made the determination that
we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 28
through 36, 39 through 49, 51, 91 and 92 on appeal. Our
reasons follow.
Independent claim 28 on appeal sets forth a process for
manufacturing a superconducting elongated article including
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007