Appeal No. 1999-2595
Application No. 08/927,106
related appeal were different than those applied in this appeal.3
Accordingly, the claims and references in this appeal are different
than related Appeal No. 97-0355. See In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d
1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976).
B. The Rejections
The examiner finds that Ozaki does not disclose or suggest
three features (Answer, page 4). The dispositive issue is whether
Han teaches the third feature, i.e., presintering the NGO on the
nickel substrate at temperatures sufficient for nickel from the
substrate to diffuse into the NGO (see claim 1, part (c); the
Brief, pages 6-8; and the Answer, pages 5-7).4
3Uchigawa et al., Japanese Kokai patent application 4-
152319, published May 26, 1992, was applied by the examiner in
related Appeal No. 97-0355, while the Woolf ‘360 and ‘389
patents applied in this appeal were not applied in Appeal No. 97-
0355.
4We note that the first difference is listed as “a nickel
substrate” by the examiner (Answer, page 4). The examiner
applies Woolf ‘389 as evidence that nickel has been used as a
substrate for depositing a YBCO superconductor layer through an
intermediate layer (id.). However, Woolf ‘389 is similar to
Ozaki and only discloses and suggests nickel alloy substrates
(see col. 4, ll. 29-47, and Table 1). The claims of Woolf ‘389
(col. 8, ll. 47-53) recite nickel but only in combination with
the other elements (e.g., chromium and silicon, see claim 14).
We also note that Woolf ‘360, applied only against claims 3-6,
discloses the use of nickel alloy substrates but teaches that
nickel has been previously used as a substrate, although it is
not desirable for some applications (col. 1, ll. 58-61; col. 2,
(continued...)
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007