Appeal No. 2002-0405
Application No. 07/325,269
Claims 19/6 - 19/8
Chu teaches superconducting mixed metal oxides containing
copper (claim 19/6), barium (claim 19/7), and lanthanum (claim
19/8). Since there would be no reason to expect that the claimed
compounds differ from those of Chu (see, supra, pp. 9-10), claims
19/6 - 19/8 are anticipated by, or obvious over, Chu.
6. Claims 19/9 and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as obvious over Chu in view of the admitted prior art.
Claim 19/9
Claim 19/9 is rejected as obvious over Chu in view of the
admitted prior art for the same reasons discussed above with
respect to Bednorz. See, supra, pp. 11-12.
Claims 22-24
Chu discloses superconducting compositions represented by
the formula (La1-x-Bax)2CuO4-y wherein x=0.20 or 0.1515. Chu, p.
405, col. 1. It would have been obvious to have replaced La with
another Group III metal such as Y in the claimed formula given
Chu’s teaching that Ba may be replaced with Sr, i.e., another
Group II metal (Chu, p. 407, col. 2), and the admitted prior art
which teaches that yttrium-barium-copper oxide compounds were
15This falls within the range of appellants’ invention. See,
supra, note 9.
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007