Appeal No. 98-2457
Application No. 08/851,312
pipe, the process therein (e.g., col. 6, lines 1-11) then
requires separate heat treatment of the reduced cross section
filled pipe to provide substantial sintering of the oxide
powder, typically in the range of 700º-950º C. Nothing in Jin
is suggestive of hot-plastic deformation and sintering of the
superconducting compound oxide powder of the filled pipe in
the same operation, as required in claim 40 on appeal.
Moreover, we again note that the examiner has failed to
demonstrate that the claimed rate of cooling is taught or
fairly suggested by Jin. Nor, for the same reasons expressed
with regard to claim 28 above, do we find the examiner’s
alternative position that the claimed rate of cooling is
merely "deemed to be a matter of design choice" persuasive
here.
Accordingly, the examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 40, and the claims which depend therefrom, under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Jin "with/without the
state of the art" is also not sustained.
12
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007