Ex Parte SIMON et al - Page 2




          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