Appeal No. 2002-0405
Application No. 07/325,269
9. Claim 19/9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious
over Wu in view of the admitted prior art.
It would have been obvious to have produced a
superconducting mixed metal oxide using gadolinium in place of
yttrium given Chu’s teaching that superconductivity is exhibited
in the Y-Ba-Cu-O mixed metal oxide system. See, supra, pp. 11-12
(discussing the rejection of claim 19/9 as obvious over Bednorz
in view of the admitted prior art).
OTHER ISSUES
In the event that appellants elect to continue prosecution
of this case, we recommend that both appellants and the examiner
consider the following related issues:
1. The Gotor Article
Appellants rely on Gotor as providing "unsolicited,
independent evidence from researchers having no connection with
Boeing or with the present Applicants to suggest that sol-gel
products differ from those of the Hor prior art because of their
method of manufacture." Appeal Brief, p. 5. Hor examined Y-Ba-
Cu-O compounds prepared through solid-state reaction in
accordance with “previously reported” methods, i.e., the methods
disclosed in Wu. Hor, p. 911, col. 2. Should Appellants rely on
16
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007