Interference No. 101,981
the count. Since “limitations not clearly included in a count
should not be read into it”, Kroekel v. Shah, 558 F.2d 29, 32,
194 USPQ 544, 547 (CCPA 1977), we do not read the count as
exclusively directed to a species of AB 2Cu3Oy where the oxygen
level corresponds to y.7.0.
Like Beyers, Qadri’s specification does not mention “purity”
or a percentage and therefore cannot be relied upon for an
explicit interpretation of the count’s “purity” language.
Instead, Qadri’s specification teaches (e.g., p. 5, line 23) a
composition with an oxygen stoichiometry corresponding to y=7.0
and emphasizes (p. 13) slow cooling, among other processing
steps, (e.g., multiple grinding), as critical for producing that
composition. Qadri provides the most detailed description of
A1B2Cu307. Nevertheless, like Beyers, this information does not
assist us in interpreting the count but rather provides us with
insight into the behavior of AB 2Cu3Oy-based materials. Qadri’s
discussion (QB 12-15) on the matter follows a line of argument
similar to Beyers’. Given their disclosure, Qadri defines
“purity” as the amount of AB2Cu3O7 because only material of that
formula can exhibit the stated superconductivity. Qadri states
that species not performing as stated are “impurities” (QRB 3).
Therefore, according to Qadri, the composition of the count
28
Page: Previous 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007