Ex Parte KLEE et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 22, 2002

08408753 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 22, 2002)

The opinion in support of the decision being
entered today was not written for publication
and is not binding precedent of the Board

Paper No. 15

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

__________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte MAREIKE K. KLEE,
HANS-WOLFGANG BRAND and POUL LARSEN
__________

Appeal No. 1998-1178
Application No. 08/408,753
__________

ON BRIEF
__________

Before GARRIS, JEFFREY SMITH and PAWLIKOWSKI, Administrative
Patent Judges.

PAWLIKOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is a decision on appeal from the examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-12 and 16-20. Claims 13-15 are
directed to non-elected claims.
Claims 1 and 10 are illustrative of the subject matter
on appeal, and are reproduced below:
1. A perovskite-containing composite material
comprising a substrate, an intermediate layer of a first
titanium-containing perovskite and a covering layer of a
second perovskite, characterized in that both the first and
the second perovskites are quaternary or more complex
perovskites.

Appeal No. 1998-1178
Application 08/408,753

2
10. A method of manufacturing a perovskite-containing
composite material as claimed in Claim 1, by providing a
substrate with a first titanium-containing quaternary or
more complex perovskite intermediate layer, and with a
second quaternary or more complex perovskite as a covering
layer, the coating forming the intermediate layer being
sintered before the covering layer is provided.

The the following reference is applied by the examiner
in the art rejection:
Swartz et al. (Swartz) 5,198,269 Mar. 30, 1993

Claims 1-12 and 16-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b), as anticipated by Swartz, and under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as obvious over Swartz.
We refer to the brief, and to the answer, for a
complete exposition of the opposing viewpoints expressed by
the appellants and by the examiner concerning the above-
noted rejection.
OPINION
For the reasons expressed by appellants, and for the
reasons set forth below, we reverse the rejection of record.
On pages 5-6 of the brief, appellants argue that both
claims 1 and 10 require that the intermediate layer (the
layer closest to the substrate) is a titanium containing
quaternary, or more complex, perovskite. Appellants point
out that Swartz provides that the first layer (intermediate
layer) is made of lead titanate or strontium titanate, which
is a tertiary perovskite.
On page 4 of the answer, the examiner rebuts and states
that column 3, line 67 through column 4, line 5 of Swartz
suggests that where improved crystallinity is not critical,
the second layer may be deposited directly on the substrate.
The examiner concludes that when the second layer is closest

Appeal No. 1998-1178
Application 08/408,753

3
to the substrate, the layer is a titanium containing
quaternary perovskite.
Upon our review of Swartz, we observe that Swartz does
not indicate that the second layer is deposited on a
substrate. Swartz recommends that the second layer be
deposited on the first layer (column 3, lines 67-68 and
column 4, lines 1-4).
However, assuming arguendo that Swartz does suggest to
deposit the second layer on the substrate, the examiner has
not addressed what the second layer would be made of when
the first layer is a titanium containing quaternary
perovskite. We observe that possibly the examiner is
interpreting that when the titanium containing quaternary
perovskite layer is deposited on the substrate, the layer
comprises multiple layers of the same material, and that
this interpretation would meet appellants’ claim 1.
However, upon our review of the specification, for
example, on page 3, beginning at line 28 through page 4,
line 4, we observe that appellants' first and second layers
are not identical. See also Examples 1-7 on pages 7-11 of
appellants’ specification. Moreover, the method recited in
appellants’ claim 10 requires that the coating forming the
intermediate layer is sintered before the covering layer is
provided, which would then require that the layers are not
identical. Therefore, in this context, the examiner’s
interpretation of Swartz would not meet the limitations
found in appellants’ claim 1 and in claim 10.

Appeal No. 1998-1178
Application 08/408,753

4

In view of the above, we determine that the examiner
has not set forth a prima facie case, and therefore reverse
the rejection.

REVERSED

Bradley R. Garris )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
Jeffrey T. Smith )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
Beverly Pawlikowski )
Administrative Patent Judge )

BAP/cam

Appeal No. 1998-1178
Application 08/408,753

5

Jack E. Haken
Corporate Patent Counsel
US Philips Corporation
580 White Plains Road
Tarrytown, NY 10591