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 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007