Appeal No. 1996-2718
Application No. 08/221,207
1. Wagner teaches:
a. an electrically heated crucible which has a hole at the bottom through
which the molten stream of material to be fiberized is passed (Abstract; col. 1, line 39,
through col. 2, line 40);
b. fine mineral fibers, particularly glass fibers and diabase fibers (col. 1,
lines 15-27);
c. heating the fiberizing gas to temperatures of 800-1400EC, i.e., 1472-
2552EF (col. 4, lines 20-25).
2. Wagner does not teach:
a. a superconducting material;
b. heating the fiberizing gas to a temperature ranging from 150-750EF.
OPINION
We reverse all of the aforementioned rejections. The examiner has not sustained
his burden of providing sufficient bases for his rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. '
112, first and second paragraphs, and ' 103.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. ' 112, second paragraph
The examiner rejects claims 1-4, 6-8, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. ' 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the
subject matter which the appellants regard as the invention. Claim 1 has the phrase
"heating the melted superconducting material to a temperature above its melting point to
form a stream of melted superconducting material", which the examiner asserts is
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007