Appeal No. 2002-0405
Application No. 07/325,269
5. the above-cited references as well as the documents
cited by the examiner and appellants during prosecution; and
6. the materials identified in our Decision in Appeal No.
2001-0087, mailed concurrently with this Decision.
NEW GROUNDS OF REJECTION
1. Claims 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph.8 The specification does not enable any person skilled
in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly
connected to make the invention commensurate in scope with these
claims.
The specification, while being enabling for y=0 and d=any
positive number less than 4, does not reasonably provide
enablement for y=1 or d=4. See specification, p. 9, ll. 28-32
(“Another metal oxide superconductor, when yttrium is present, is
represented by the formula of [Y1-[y]Ba[y]]2 CuO4-d, wherein d is
8“The specification shall contain a written description of the
invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in
such full, clear, concise and exact terms as to enable any person
skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most
nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the
best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.”
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007