Ex Parte Rupich et al - Page 9


                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