Interference No. 101,981
Reasons For Broadly Interpreting The Count
As the above chart illustrates, the parties have given the
count two different interpretations: for Batlogg, the composition
of the count has a generic formula where y=6.4-7.0, for Beyers
and Qadri, the composition of the count is limited to those of
the formula where y=6.9-7.0. We have carefully reviewed the
parties’ arguments and, for the following reasons, we agree with
Batlogg that the purity requirement requires only that the
composition be at least 90% orthorhombic of a generic formula
where y=6.4-7.0 and exhibit zero electrical resistance at a
temperature of 700 K or above.
First, we agree with Batlogg (BaB 27) that the APJ has
previously broadly interpreted “90% purity”. The question of
count interpretation previously arose during the preliminary
motion period. In response to Batlogg’s Motion under
§ 1.633(c)(1) to substitute a proposed count for present Count 1
(paper no. 47), the APJ denied the motion but granted Batlogg’s
alternative request16 to find that the count excludes non-superconductive AB2Cu3Oy
16 “In the alternative, if the Board finds that the count unambiguously excludes superconductive
material of the defined stoichiometry that contains a significant amount of a non-superconducting
(tetragonal) phase, it is respectively urged that such a finding be made to appear in the record of this
interference.” (paper no. 47, p. 6)
23
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007