Appeal No. 98-2457
Application No. 08/851,312
position that the claimed rate of cooling is merely "deemed to
be a matter of design choice" (answer, page 5) persuasive.
Appellants’ specification (e.g., page 25) makes clear that
certain improvement in the property of superconductivity can
be achieved by the heat treatment phase of the process
including a slow cooling of the sintered body at a rate of
less than 50ēC/min. Appellants’ brief (pages 5-6) more
particularly states that the claimed cooling rate is important
in ensuring that the superconducting compound oxide receives
sufficient oxygen so that its superconducting property is not
deteriorated.
In light of the foregoing, we will not sustain the
examiner’s rejection of independent claim 28, or any of the
claims which depend therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on
Jin "with/without the state of the art."
With regard to independent claim 40, this claim defines a
process for manufacturing a superconducting elongated article
including the steps of filling a material powder of a
superconducting compound oxide into a metal pipe and
10
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007