Appeal 2007-2236
Application 10/991,738
1 The Rupich Examples
2 We assume that the data reported in the examples is based on actual
3 experimentation and that the examples are not prophetic.
4 Example I describes a film made from Cu(CF3CO2) which has a
5 thickness of 0.4 micrometers. Publication ¶ 0161 through 0165. The article
6 described in Example I does not fall within the scope of the claim 89
7 because the Cu salt is not "non-halogenated" (since it has fluorine) and it is
8 not thick enough (0.4 vis-à-vis the claimed 0.5 micrometers).
9 Example II describes a film made using claimed ingredients, but does
10 not tell us the critical current density. Publication ¶¶ 0166 through 0169.
11 Accordingly, we do not know whether the film falls within the scope of the
12 film of claim 89.
13 Example III describes a film made using the claimed ingredients, but
14 likewise does not describe any critical current density. Likewise, it does not
15 describe the thickness of layer 14. Publication ¶ 0170. Accordingly, we do
16 not know whether the film falls within the scope of the film of claim 89.
17 Examples IV and V describe a film made from Cu(CCl3CO2)xH20.
18 Publication ¶¶ 0171 through 0173. The article described in Examples IV
19 and V do not fall within the scope of the claim 89 because the Cu salt is not
20 "non-halogenated" (since it has chlorine).
21 Examples VI through IX do not describe the critical current density
22 and therefore we cannot tell whether any article described in those examples
23 falls with the scope of the claims.
24 Example X describes a film made with the right ingredients, but is
25 said to have a thickness of 0.41 micrometers. Since claim 89 requires a
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013