Appeal 2006-2121
Application 10/025,473
BACKGROUND
The invention on appeal is directed to a super conducting material
comprising a C20 fullerene and a method of producing the same. Claims 1 and 7,
as presented in the Brief, are reproduced below:
1. A superconducting material comprising a structure wherein C20
Fullerene molecules are polymerized into a one-dimensional chain.
7. A method for producing a superconducting material, comprising
the steps of:
incorporating and polymerizing C20 Fullerene molecules in a porous
material which has a large band gap between a valence band and a
conduction band;
mounting the porous material incorporating the C20 Fullerene
molecules on a semiconductor substrate doped with an acceptor or a donor;
and
applying electric field to the porous material.
The Examiner rejected claims 1 to 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph
for lack of an enabling disclosure (Answer 3-6).
OPINION
It is well settled that the burden of proof lies upon the United States Patent
and Trademark Office (USPTO) in calling into question the enablement of an
Applicant’s disclosure. This burden requires the USPTO to advance acceptable
reasoning inconsistent with the enablement. Upon the advance of acceptable
reasoning, the burden shifts to the Applicant to show that one of ordinary skill in
the art could not have practiced the claimed invention without undue
experimentation. In re Strahilevitz, 668 F.2d 1229, 1232, 212 USPQ 561, 563
(CCPA 1982).
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007