Ex parte ITOZAKI et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 10, 1998

08167437 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 10, 1998)

Application for patent filed December 14, 1993. 1
According to appellants, the application is a continuation of
Application 07/939,050, filed September 3, 1992, now
abandoned.
-1-
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered
today (1) was not written for publication in a law
journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 47
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________
Ex parte HIDEO ITOZAKI, KEIZO HARADA, NAOJI FUJIMORI,
SHUJI YAZU and TETSUJI JODAI
________________
Appeal No. 95-3312
Application 08/167,4371
________________
HEARD: JUNE 8, 1998
________________
Before THOMAS, WEIFFENBACH and OWENS, Administrative Patent
Judges.
OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the examiner’s final rejection of
Appeal No. 95-3312
Application 08/167,437
In claim 26 it appears that “Group IIIa” should read2
“Group IIIb” and that appellants’ specification should be
corrected accordingly. Note that on page 6 of the
specification, third to fifth lines from the bottom, the
listed elements are in Group IIIb rather than Group IIIa as
stated in the fifth line from the bottom.
-2-
claims 6-13 and 26. Claims 14-22, which are the only other
claims remaining in the application, have been withdrawn from
consideration by the examiner as being directed toward a
nonelected invention.
THE INVENTION
Appellants claim a composite comprised of a specified
substrate having thereon an MgO buffer layer on which is
disposed a thin film of a specified superconducting material.
Claim 26 is illustrative and reads as follows:
26. A semiconductor substrate-superconducting thin film
composite comprising a single crystal semiconductor substrate,
a superconducting thin film layer of compound oxide and an MgO
buffer layer interposed between said semiconductor substrate
and said superconducting layer, wherein said semiconductor
substrate is made of a semiconductor selected from the group
consisting of 3C-SiC, 6H-SiC, GaAs, GaP, InP, InSb, ZnSe,
CdTe, HgCdTe, GaInAs, InAlAs and InGaAsP and said compound
oxide is composed of at least one element selected from Group
IIa of the Periodic Table, at least one element selected from
Group IIIa of the Periodic Table, and copper.2
THE REFERENCES
Appeal No. 95-3312
Application 08/167,437
Our consideration of Lee is based on the entire3
article, a copy of which is provided to appellants with this
decision.
-3-
Ray 4,892,861 Jan. 9, 1990
Henty 4,931,424 Jun. 5, 1990
Toshiyuki Aida et al., “Preparation of YBa Cu O2 3 7-x
Superconducting Thin Films by RF-Magnetron Sputtering”, 26
Japanese J. Appl. Phys. L1489-91 (Sept. 1987) (Aida).
S.Y. Lee et al., “Microprobe Characterization of Sputtered
High T Superconducting Films on Si and SiTiO ”, Am. Vacuumc 2
Soc’y 34 Nat’l Symp. (Anaheim, Cal., Nov. 2-6, 1987), in Am.th
Inst. Phys. Conf. Proc. No. 165, 427-34 (James M.E. Harper et
al. eds., New York 1988) (Lee). 3
M. Gurvitch and A.T. Fiory, “Preparation and substrate
reactions of superconducting Y-Ba-Cu-O films”, 51 Appl. Phys.
Lett. 1027-29 (Sept. 1987) (Gurvitch).
P.A. Morris et al., “Growth of high T superconductingc
Bi (Ca,Sr) Cu O crystals”, 53 Appl. Phys. Lett. 249-51 (July4 6 4 16+x
1988) (Morris).
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 10, 11 and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Henty in view of Lee and Aida.
Claims 6-9, 12 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over these references, and further in view
Appeal No. 95-3312
Application 08/167,437
-4-
of Gurvitch, Morris and Ray.
OPINION
We have carefully considered all of the arguments
advanced by appellants and the examiner and agree with
appellants that the aforementioned rejections are not well
founded. Accordingly, these rejections will be reversed.
The examiner argues that Lee teaches that it was known to
use a buffer layer of an insulating material such as zirconium
oxide between a superconducting layer and the supporting
substrate (answer, page 4). We do not find in Lee any
indication that the disclosed zirconium oxide is merely an
example of a larger class of suitable buffer layer materials
as asserted by the examiner. Lee does not disclose use of any
buffer layer material other than zirconium oxide.
Also, Lee does not teach that a buffer layer is needed
between a superconducting layer and the particular substrate
materials recited in appellants’ claims. The examiner argues
that appellants’ disclosure indicates that a buffer layer used
for a silicon substrate may also be formed between other
semiconductor substrates and a superconducting film (answer,
Appeal No. 95-3312
Application 08/167,437
-5-
page 10). This argument is not well taken because appellants’
specification is not prior art.
The examiner argues that Aida discloses depositing
superconducting thin films on different substrates such as MgO
and shows that there is minimal reaction between the two
layers and that superconducting properties will not
deteriorate if a
superconducting layer is formed adjacent to MgO layer (answer,
page 4). Aida teaches that YBa Cu O and MgO have similar2 3 7-x
coefficients of thermal expansion (Table 1, page L1490) and
that a film of a YBa Cu O superconductor on an MgO substrate2 3 7-x
has a critical temperature of 81EK (page L1489). We do not
find in Aida, however, a teaching that there is minimal
reaction between MgO and a YBa Cu O superconductor layer, as2 3 7-x
asserted by the examiner.
The examiner argues that Lee’s zirconium oxide buffer
layer has minimal reaction with the superconducting layer and
that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art to substitute other insulating films, such as MgO, as
Appeal No. 95-3312
Application 08/167,437
-6-
long as they have the same characteristics as zirconium oxide
(answer, pages 8-9). The examiner, however, has not
established that magnesium oxide and zirconium oxide have the
same characteristics. We note that Gurvitch teaches that
magnesium oxide is chemically attacked more strongly than
zirconium oxide by a YBaCuO film (page 1027, second
paragraph).
For the above reasons, we find that the examiner has not
set forth a factual basis which is adequate to support a
conclusion of obviousness of appellants’ claimed invention.
DECISION
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 10, 11 and
26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Henty, Lee and Aida, and of
claims 6-9, 12 and 13 over these references and Gurvitch,
Morris and Ray, are reversed.
REVERSED
JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 95-3312
Application 08/167,437
-7-
)
)
)
CAMERON WEIFFENBACH ) BOARD OF
PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
TERRY J. OWENS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 95-3312
Application 08/167,437
-8-
Jordan B. Bierman
Bierman & Muserlian
600 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10016