Ex parte TUOMINEN et al. - Page 3




          Appeal No. 1997-4287                                                        
          Application No. 08/275,864                                                  

          thereby mechanically aligning particles of the potentially                  
          superconducting powder along an axis of electrical conduction;              
          and                                                                         
               removing the solvent from the bicomponent filaments.                   
               The references relied upon by the examiner as evidence of              
          obviousness are:                                                            
          Johnson             4,988,671                Jan. 29, 1991                  
          Kloucek             5,037,801                Aug.  6, 1991                  
               All of the appealed claims stand rejected under the                    
          second paragraph of 35 U.S.C.  112 for failing to                          
          particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter              
          which the appellants regard as their invention.                             
               All of the appealed claims also stand rejected under the               
          first paragraph of 35 U.S.C.  112 as being based upon a                    
          disclosure which would not enable practice of the here claimed              
          invention.                                                                  
               Finally, all of the appealed claims stand rejected under               
          35 U.S.C.  103 as being unpatentable over Johnson in view of               
          Kloucek.                                                                    
               We cannot sustain any of the above noted rejections.                   
               Concerning the section 112, second paragraph, rejection,               
          the examiner contends that “[t]he claims are indefinite in                  
          that claim 1 recites that the powder or particles are aligned               

                                          3                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007