Appeal No. 1999-1462
Application No. 08/747,881
Claim 5
After evaluating the rejection of this claim, this claim
the Examiner’s related response (answer, pages 4 to 6) and
Appellants’ related arguments (brief, page 8), we agree with
Appellants that the Examiner has not pointed to any place in
Schwartzkopf or Ochiai where the claimed ratio for the bismuth
oxide superconductors is shown or taught. We are of the view
that the applied prior art does not teach the claimed ratio
for such superconductors. Therefore, we do not sustain the
obviousness rejection of claim 5 over Hagino, Ochiai and
Schwartzkopf.
Claim 7
This claim additionally calls for “an organic material
covering said metal sheath.” We find that Ochiai teaches the
desirability as well as the application of an organic type
film (see abstract) over the outer surface of a superconductor
to make the superconductor non-permeable to moisture.
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that it would have been
obvious to an artisan at the time of the invention to coat the
metal sheath of the superconductor cable of Hagino with an
organic material as taught by Ochiai. Thus, we sustain the
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007