Appeal No. 1997-2063
Application No. 08/433,818
crystalline film are chemically compatible so that there is
substantially no chemical interaction between the superconductor
and the substrate.
16. The superconductor device of claim 13, wherein the
superconductor is a layered perovskite oxide compound comprised
of metallic elements selected from the group consisting of
yttrium, erbium, lanthanum, neodymium, samarium, europium,
gadolinium, dysprosium, holmium, thulium, ytterbium, lutetium,
and thallium.
In the rejection of the appealed claims, the examiner does
not rely upon prior art.
Appellants' claimed invention is directed to a
superconductor device comprising a crystalline lanthanum
aluminate substrate and a film of a crystalline superconductor
deposited thereon. According to appellants' specification, the
lanthanum aluminate substrate is superior to the strontium
titanate substrate of the prior art with respect to dielectric
constant at superconductive temperatures.
Appealed claims 13-17, 19, 22, 23, 25 and 28-31 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as being based
upon a non-enabling disclosure. Claims 16, 25 and 30 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as being based
upon a specification that does not contain a written description
of the claimed subject matter. In addition, appealed claims
13-17, 19, 22, 23, 25, 26 and 28-31 stand rejected under the
judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting
over U.S. Patent No. 5,523,282.
-2-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007