Appeal No. 1999-1462
Application No. 08/747,881
Analysis
All the claims on appeal, 1 to 3 and 5 to 7 are rejected
over Hagino, Ochiai and Schwartzkopf. We now consider the
three Appellants-elected groups (brief, page 3) of claims
below.
Claims 1 to 3 and 6
We take claim 1 as representative of this group.
Appellants argue (brief, pages 4 to 8 and reply brief, page 2)
that Hagino does not show the claimed limitation of “wherein
the thickness-directional dimension of each said
superconductor is not more than 5% of the thickness
directional outside dimension of said metal sheath . . . . ”
The Examiner asserts (answer, pages 5 to 6) that Hagino does
disclose this limitation. The Examiner incorporates (id. 5) a
part of paper no. 28, a prior final rejection, showing the
calculations which prove the claimed ratio to be less than 5%.
Appellants have presented (brief, pages 5 to 7) a set of their
own calculations in an attempt to show that Hagino does not
disclose the claimed ratio. In our view, the Examiner’s
reasoning is sound and is based on Hagino’s equation (page 11)
for the “reduction ratio” and “[e]xample 2" (page 13). In
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007