Appeal 2007-2236
Application 10/991,738
1 Critical current density
2 Rupich maintains that the claimed critical current density is "an
3 unexpected advantage" of the claimed articles. Supp. Appeal Brief 4-5.
4 However, on this record Rupich has not convincingly explained (1)
5 the significance of a critical current density in this art or (2) why the critical
6 current densities said to be obtained with the invention are unexpected.
7 In attempting to distinguish Gupta from the claimed invention, Rupich
8 calls our attention to the fact that Gupta describes articles having a layer
9 (corresponding to Rupich's layer 14) with a critical current density of 1000
10 amperes per square centimeter. Gupta, page 2079, column 1, last sentence,
11 first full paragraph: "The critical current density of films with Tc (R = 0)
12 higher than 90 K is about 1000 A/cm2 at 77 K, whereas films with broader
13 transition which are also less textured, have critical current density which is
14 an order of magnitude lower." A value of 1000 is the same as 1 x 103 which,
15 of course, is lower by three orders of magnitude than Rupich's range of
16 1 x 106. An order of magnitude lower, mentioned by Gupta, would be 1 x
17 102 or 100.
18 We are not sure whether the difference between the Gupta critical
19 current density and that of Rupich is significant. For the purpose of deciding
20 the appeal we will assume that Rupich is correct and that the claimed critical
21 current density is "unexpected."
22 Prior art
23 Beyond what we have already said about Gupta and what will be
24 discussed with respect to Mizuta, we do not find it necessary to otherwise
25 discuss the prior art.
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013