Appeal No. 2000-0491 Page 2
Application No. 08/906,855
BACKGROUND
The appellants’ invention relates to a process for producing a composite
superconductor wire. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 97, which appears in the appendix to the appellants’ Brief.
The prior art reference of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims is:
Jin et al. (Jin) 4,952,554 Aug. 28, 1990
Claims 97, 98, 100-116 and 118 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the
subject matter which the appellants regard as the invention.
Claims 97, 98 and 100-118 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Jin.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the Answer (Paper
No. 45) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the Brief
(Paper No. 44) and Reply Brief (Paper No. 47) for the appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007