Skip to main content

Full text of "USPTO Patents Application 08479810"

See other formats


Ser. No. 08/303,561 



REMARKS 

Claims 24-26, 86-90 and 96 to 128 are in the application. 

Claims 113-128 are added by this amendment. 

Herein, EA will refer to the Examiner's Action's dated April 15. 1996. 

In regard to applicant's claim of priority, in EA paragraphs 3.b.i, S.b.iii, 3.b.iv 
and 3.V the Examiner states "the certified priority document may provide basis for 
compositions of the formula REJM.O;'. It is noted that the Abstract of the priority 
document refers to "the general formula REj.^EJMO^y, wherein RE is a rare earth, 
AE is a member of the group of alkaline earths or a combination of at least two 
members of that group, and TM Is a transition metal, and wherein x < 0.3 and 0.1 ^ 
y ^ 0.5." This formula permits no alkaline earth and a varying amount of alkaline 
earth and rare earths and a varying amount of oxygen. At column 3, lines 20 and 35, 
there is recited "the Ba-La-Gu-O system" and at line 41 "La2,Ba,Du04.y x < 1 and y ^ 
0 and at line 44 teaches La^.^Ba^CuOgy" 

The Examiner at page 2 of PA at paragraph 3.b.i states that the priority 
document does not provide support for "the limitations a composition including a 
transition metal, a rare earth or rare earth-like elements, an alkaline earth element, an 
oxygen as found in claim 86". It is noted that in the priority document at column 2, 
lines 13-19 it is stated that "it is a characteristic of the present invention that in the 
compounds in question that the RE portion is partially substituted by one member of 
the alkaline earth group of metals, or by a combination of the members of this alkaline 



YO987-074BY 



11 




Ser. No. 08/303.561 

earth group and that the oxygen content is at a deficit." It is further noted that at 
column 2, lines 20-23 it states that "for example, one such compound that meets the 
description given by this lanthanum copper oxide La2Cu04 in which the tantalum which 
belongs to the NIB group of the elements is in part substituted by one member of the 
neighboring IMA group of elements." In the sentence bridging pages 2 and 3 of EA, 
the Examiner states that "the certified priority document may provide a basis for 
formula RE2TM.O4 at P.2, para. 4, but the claimed composition is deemed to be much 
broader than that formula." It is clear from the quoted sections of the priority 
document that the priority document clearly supports a much broader composition than 
the Examiner is stating that the priority document supports, and that the priority 
document, in fact, does support applicants' claim 86. 

At page 3, paragraph ii of EA, the Examiner states there is no support for "the 
limitation *non-stoichiometric amount of oxygen', as found in claim 86". Applicants 
submit that the use of the term oxygen deficit is noted by the Examiner at P.2, para. 4 
of the priority document and the varying amount of oxygen given in both formulas is 
sufficient and adequate support for the limitation 'non-stoichiometric' amount of 
oxygen." In regards to paragraph iii of page 3 of EA, the Examiner states there is no 
support for "transition metal oxides" as found in claim 24. Claim 24 recites transition 
metal oxide which is explicitly recited in the priority document, as stated above. Claim 
88 is directed to the superconducting material having a transition temperature in 
excess of 26°K. Claim 89 depends from claim 88 and recites that "said composition is 
comprised of a metal oxide." The priority document supports superconducting material 
containing or comprising a metal oxide. Claim 90 depends from claim 88 and recites 
"where said composition is comprised of a transition metal oxide, a copper oxide is a 
transition metal oxide." The published patent application corresponding to the priority 
document (EPO 0 274 343 A1 , 7-27-88) at column 3, line 6 recites Ti as a transition 



YO987-074BY 



12 




Ser. No. 08/303,561 

metal. It is noted that in claim 1 of the EPO published patent application 
corresponding to the priority document, claim 1 recites the structure RE2j<EJM.O^.^ 
wherein TM Is a transition metal. Claim 2 therein recites copper as the transition 
metal. Claim 3 therein recites nickel as the transition metal. Claim 8 therein recites 
chromium as the transition metal. Consequently, a broader class of transition metals 
other than copper is supported by the priority document. 

At paragraph iv, on page 3 of PA, the Examiner states that "the limitation of 
'copper-oxide compounds', as recited in claim 96" is not supported by the priority 
document with regards to which the Examiner states "the certified priority document 
may provide basis for compositions of the formula REjTM.O^." As noted above, the 
general formula recited by the Examiner is incorrectly stated and should be stated 
wherein the quantity of oxygen, of the rare earth element and of an alkaline element is 
variable. Consequently, the term "a copper-oxide compound" is adequately supported 
by the priority document. 

In paragraph v on page 3 of EA, the Examiner states that "the limitation to the 
effect that the 'copper-oxide compound' includes (including) at least one rare earth, 
rare-earth-like element and at least one alkaline-earth element 'as recited in claim 97... 
at claim 103...' is not supported by the priority document." The Examiner further 
states "the certified priority document may provide basis for compositions of the 
formula REJM.O/'. Applicants as stated above respectfully submit the priority 
document refers throughout and, in particular, in the Abstract to "the general formula 
RE2„AE,EM.04 y as stated above which includes a copper-oxide as stated above. The 
Examiner further states "but basis is not seen for the more general limitation of 'a 
copper-oxide compound' with a rare-earth (like) element and in alkaline earth 
element." It is noted that in the priority document, claim 2 refers to lanthanum as the 



YO987-074BY 



13 



Ser. No. 08/303,561 

rare earth; claim 3 refers to cerium as tine rare earth; claim 5 refers to barium as a 
partial substitute for the rare earth; claim 6 refers to calcium as a partial substitute for 
the rare earth; claim 7 refers to strontium as a partial substitute for the rare earth and 
claim 9 refers to neodymium as the rare earth. Clearly, priority document teaches 
barium, calcium, strontium. Consequently, the priority document supports the term 
rare earth-like since there are other elements other than those commonly referred to 
as the rare earth which are elements 57-71 which satisfy the teaching of the priority 
document and of the present application. The Abstract of the priority document refers 
to "AE as a member of the alkaline earth or a combination of at least two members of 
that group". Consequently, the priority document clearly supports an alkaline earth 
element. 



At paragraph vi of page 4 of EA, the Examiner asserts that the priority 
document does not support "a non-stoichiometric atomic proportion" as found in claims 
101. 102, 107 and 108. The exemplary general formula recited above which Is recited 
in the priority document clearly shows the oxygen has a variable content and, 
consequently, is not in stoichiometric proportion. Consequently, the priority document 
clearly supports the term "non-stoichiometric atomic proportion". 

At paragraph vii of page 4 of EA, the Examiner states that the priority document 
does not support "the limitation as to 'the effectively-zero-bulk resistivity intercept 
temperature T,,', as found in claim 103." Applicants responded to this same comment 
at page 6 of their response dated September 26, 1995 at pages 4-6 thereof. The 
Examiner has not commented upon applicant's remarks and has merely repeated 
what was said in the Examiner's prior Office Action. Applicant's assume that the 
Examiner agrees with applicant's statements in their prior response in that the concept 
of the intercept temperature is well known in the prior art and can be included in claim 



YO987-074BY 



14 



Ser. No. 08/303,561 



103. 



In view of the remarks herein, the Examiner is respectfully requested to 
withdraw the objection to applicant's claim for priority under 35 USC 119 based on 
applicant's priority document. 

In paragraph 4 of EA at page 4 thereof, the specification has been objected to 
under 35 USC 112, first paragraph, as failing to provide an enabling disclosure 
commensurate with the scope of the claims. Paragraphs 4.A. 4.B and 4.C on pages 
4-5 of the PA are identical to the Examiner's comments In the previous Office Action. 

Paragraph 4-C on page 5 of EA rejects claims 24-26, 86-90 and 96-108 under 
35 USC 112. first paragraph, for the same reasons set forth in the objection to the 
specification which is the same as in the Examiner's prior Office Action. 

In paragraph 4-D at page 5 of EA, the Examiner states that he has considered 
applicant's arguments in response to the Examiner's prior Office Action stating that 
they "have been fully considered but they are not deemed to be persuasive." At 
paragraph 4.D.i at page 5 of EA. the Examiner states "the additional case law and 
arguments by the applicants have been newly noted. For the reasons that follow, 
however, the record as a whole is deemed to support the initial determination that the 
originally filed disclosure would not have enabled one skilled in the art to make and 
use the invention to the scope that it presently claimed." The Examiner does not 
specifically respond to the specific passage cited from the case law, nor rebut their 
applicability in the way applicant's have applied them. Consequently, the Examiner's 
silence is viewed as agreement with applicant's argument. 



YO987-074BY 



15 



Ser. No. 08/303,561 

At paragraph d.ii on page 6 of EA, the Examiner states that "the applicant's 
quote several passages from their specification at pp. 13-15 of their September 29, 
1995 amendment, the issue is the scope of enablement, not support". The Examiner 
further states "the issue here is the scope to which that disclosure would have taught 
one skilled in the art how to make and use the composition which shows the onset of 
superconductivity above 26°K." Applicant's respectfully disagree since recitation of 
examples is part of the support for the scope of enablement. It addition to the 
examples recited at page 13-15 of applicant's specification, applicants' comments in 
their September 29, 1995 amendment, at pages 15-25 clearly show that applicant's 
"disclosure would have taught one skilled in the art how to make and use the 
composition which shows the onset of superconductivity above 26°K." 

At paragraph d.iil on page 6 of EA, the Examiner states "construed in light of 
that issue, the invention is not deemed to have been fully enabled by the disclosure to 
the extent fully claimed." Applicant's respectfully disagree and note that the Examiner 
has not specifically rebutted applicant's arguments on page 15-25 of applicant's 
September 29, 1995 amendment. All that the Examiner has said is that "the invention 
is not deemed to have been fully enabled by the disclosure to the extent fully 
claimed." 

At paragraph d.iii.1 on page 6 of EA, the Examiner states in regard to 
applicant's argument in their September 29, 1995 amendment that applicant's states 
their disclosure "lists several species such as La2.,Ba,Cu04.y which they indicate are 
found in the present disclosure." Applicant's disclosure supports a substantially 
broader scope than this species. In particular, the Examiner is directed to applicant's 
Summary of Invention on page 6-9 of applicant's application. There is no requirement 
that applicants list every possible species that could possibly come within the scope of 



YO987-074BY 



16 



Ser. No. 08/303,561 



applicant's claims. Applicant's broadly teach transition metal oxides which can contain 
rare earth and alkaline earth elements. 

At paragraph D.lii.l.a, at page 6 of EA, the Examiner states "notwithstanding 
that argument it still does not follow that the invention is fully enabled for the scope 
presently claimed." Applicant's respectfully disagree for the reasons provided by 
applicants on page 15-25 of their September 29, 1995 amendment. 



At paragraph d.iii.l.b at page 6 of EA, the Examiner refers to the paragraph 
bridging pages 3 and 4 of applicant's specification. The Examiner states "the present 
specification actually shows that known forms of 'transition metal oxide* and 'a 
copper-oxide compound' do not show the onset of superconductivity above 26°. The 
Examiner then states that "applicants state that the prior art includes a LI-Ti-0 system 
with superconducting onsets as high as 13.7" K." Applicants do not see the relevance 
of the Examiner's statements. Such a composition would not be included within the 
claims since applicant's claim covers only compositions having superconductivity 
above 26°K. Applicant's acknowledge that Ti is a transition metal. The Examiner 
notes "that disclosure also refers to 'a second non-conducting CuO phase at p. 14, 
line 18." Applicant's do not understand the significance of this quoted passage is to 
the Examiner's argument. 

At paragraph d.iii.Lc at page 7 of EA, the Examiner states "accordingly, the 
present disclosure is not deemed to have been fully enabling with respect to the 
'transition metal oxide' of claim 24, the 'composition' of claim 88 or the 'copper-oxide 
compound' of claim 98." Again, applicant's note applicant's arguments on page 15-25 
of their September 29, 1995 amendment. Applicant's, at page 5, line 3 of their 
specification, refer to transition metal oxides and the sentence bridging pages 5 and 6 



YO987-074BY 



17 



Ser. No. 08/303,561 

to superconducting composition at a greater than 26°K. 

At paragraph d.iii.2 of page 7 of EA, the Examiner states that "the examples of 
p. 18, lines 1-20, of the present specification further substantiate the finding that the 
invention is not fully enabled for the scope presently claimed." Applicant's respectfully 
disagree. 

At paragraph d.iil.2.a at page 7 of EA, the Examiner refers to an example in the 
first paragraph of page 18 of their specification which says at line 10 "and there is no 
superconductivity." The Examiner appears to be using this paragraph to support the 
Examiner's assertion that applicant's claims are not enabled by their disclosure. Quite 
to the contrary, this paragraph supports applicant's assertion that their claims are 
enabled. Applicant's are providing a broad teaching of how these compositions can 
be fabricated, by providing a teaching which has not resulted in superconductivity, 
applicant's are providing a teaching of methods which do lead to examples showing 
superconductivity. Even if the claims encompass some inoperative examples, this 
does not render the claims unenabled. Moreover, the claims specifically refer to 
compounds which are superconducting. Consequently, a sample which is not 
superconducting is not within the scope of the claim. Applicant's submit that the 
Examiner is citing fragments of statements from their specification out of context 
resulting in a misunderstanding of applicant's teaching. 

At paragraph d.iii.2.b, at page 7 of EA, the Examiner refers to applicant's 
example which appears to be in the third paragraph of page 18 of applicant's 
specification which at line 20 recites T,=26°K. The Examiner then says that 
applicant's claims require T, to be greater than 26°K in what appears to be an attempt 
to show that applicant's claims are not enabled. Applicants do not believe the 



YO987-074BY 



18 



Ser. No. 08/303,561 

recitation of 26°K in the specification and > 26°K in the claims has any significance to 
this argument. Applicant's can amend their claims to say ^ 26" if that's what the 
Examiner would prefer. Clearly, the temperature consistent with applicant's claims 
can be infinltesimally close to 26°K. 

At paragraph d.ii.2.c at page 7 of EA, the Examiner states "consequently, the 
present disclosure is not deemed to adequately enable the full scope of the present 
claims." The Examiner further states "independent claims 86 and 103 may require the 
presence of rare earth, alkaline earth, and transition metals, but the aforementioned 
examples show that superconductivity is still very unpredictable." Applicant's 
respectfully disagree that the aforementioned examples show that superconductivity is 
still very unpredictable. The Examiner has taken applicant's examples out of context. 
These examples are provided as part of the teaching on how to fabricate the claimed 
invention. 

The Examiner further states "those claims cannot be deemed to be fully 
enabled." Applicants respectfully disagree. It is also noted again that the Examiner 
has not addressed applicants arguments on page 15-25 of applicants September 29. 
1 995 amendment. 

At paragraph d.iv on page 7 of EA, the Examiner refers to 3 affidavits submitted 
by applicants. Applicants acknowledge that the 3 affiants are employees of the 
assignee of the present application. At paragraph d.lV.1 at page 8 of EA the 
Examiner states "those affidavits do not set forth particular facts to support the 
conclusions that all superconductors based on applicants' work behave in the same 
way and that one of skill in the art can make those superconductors without undue 
experimentation. Conclusionary statements in an affidavit or specification do not 



YO987-074BY 



19 



# 



Ser. No. 08/303,561 

provide the facts or evidence needed for patentability." The referred to affidavits are 
dated after August 19, 1995 a period of more than 8 years after the present 
application was filed. Those affidavits refer to developments in the field after the 
publication of applicants which was cited on page 6 of applicants specification. The 
statements in the affidavits are not conclusionary but are statements of fact. By the 
Examiners statement that these are conclusionary the Examiner appears to be placing 
himself up as an expert in the field of superconductivity. Applicants respectfully 
request that the Examiner submit an affidavit in the present application rebutting the 
position taken by applicants 3 affiants. 

At paragraph d.iv.2, at page 8 of PA, the Examiner states "those affidavits do 
not overcome the non-enablement rejection. The present specification discloses on its 
face that only certain oxides compositions of rare earth, alkaline earth and transition 
metals made according to the certain steps will superconduct at greater than 26°K." 
Applicants respectfully disagree with this statement. Applicants' specifications 
discloses substantially more as applicants have indicated above and as applicants 
have indicated in their amendment of September 29. 1995. Applicants work clearly 
started the field of high-temperature superconductivity. Consequently, applicants 
teaching has enabled this entire field. The Examiners statements to the contrary have 
no basis in fact. 

At paragraph d.iv.3 of page 8 of PA, the Examiner states "those affidavits are 
not deemed to shed light on the state of the art and enablement at the time the 
invention was made." Applicant's respectfully disagree. The Examiner has not shown 
any reason contrary to applicants assertion that the superconducting materials can be 
made by the methods disclosed by applicant's and as stated by applicant's 3 affiants. 
Applicant's have objectively enabled their application and their claims. Applicant's 



YO987-074BY 



20 



Ser. No. 08/303,561 

have pointed to copious locations in their specification which do provide support for 
applicant's claims. 

At paragraph d.iv.4 at page 8 of EA, the Examiner states that "it is fully 
understood that the applicant's are the pioneers in high temperature metal-oxide 
superconductivity. The finding remains, nonetheless, that the disclosure is not fully 
enabling for the scope of the present claims." Applicant's respectfully disagree. The 
Examiner has provided no substantial evidence to support this assertion. It is 
respectfully requested that the Examiner support their assertion with factual evidence 
and not unsupported statements. 

In view of the remarks herein, the Examiner is respectfully requested to 
withdraw the objection to the specification under 35 USC 112, first paragraph, and the 
rejection of claims 24-26, 86-90 and 96-108 under 35 USC 112, first paragraph. 

Claims 86-87 and 96-108 have been rejected under 35 USC 112, second 
paragraph as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the 
subject matter which applicant's regard as their invention. Applicant's note that the 
Examiner has not responded to applicant's comments which supports applicants 
position that a person of skill in the art would understand the terms "layer-type" and 
"perovskite-like" and has just repeated their rejection of the prior Office Action. 
Applicant's respectfully request the Examiner to comment on applicant's prior remarks. 

In view of the remarks herein, the Examiner is respectfully requested to 
withdraw the rejection of claims 86-87 and 96-108 under 35 USC 112, second 
paragraph. 



YO987-074BY 



21 



Ser. No. 08/303,561 



Claims 24-26, 86-90 and 96-108 have been rejected under 35 USC 102(a) as 
being anticipated by Asahi Shinbum Int'l. Satellite Edition (London) November 11, 
1986. The Examiner incorrectly gives a date of November 11, 1986 for this article. It 
is November 28, 1986. 

Paragraph 6.a and S.b of page 10 of EA are essentially the same as in the 
Examiner's prior action. Applicant's have responded to these paragraphs In their prior 
response. 

In paragraph 6-C at page 10 of EA, the Examiner notes applicant's prior 
responses and states that they "have been fully considered but they are not deemed 
to be persuasive." It is noted that in the declaration of co-inventors J.G. Bednorz and 
K.A. Mueller dated March 21, 1988, mailed into the patent office on June 22, 1988 at 
paragraph 3 states "On approximately October 16, 1986, we gave Praveen 
Chaudhari... six samples of the high temperature superconductive ceramic oxide 
materials that we had described in our aforementioned Z Physik B. publication. 
Praveen Chaudhari brought these samples back to the U.S. when he returned after 
visiting with us on or about October 16, 1986." This is evidence that these samples 
are brought into the United States on or about October 16, 1986. When these 
samples came into the United States, since they were inherently superconductive as 
claimed, the invention was essentially reduced to practice in the United States on that 
date. It is further noted that the Declaration of Alexis P. Maiozenoff signed March 30, 
1988 states at paragraph 3, "On or about November 15, 1986, Richard Greene and I 
travelled to Baltimore for a magnetics conference. During our travel to Baltimore, we 
discussed Greene's ongoing experiments in high T^ superconducting samples which 
he said had been received from Bednorz and Mueller." This is clear evidence that by 
November 15, 1986, superconducting samples fabricated by applicant's were being 



YO987-074BY 



22 



Ser. No. 08/303,561 

measured in the United States. These samples were inherently superconducting and, 
consequently, established the reduction to practice in the United States as of that 
date. The Declaration of Cheng-Chung John Chi dated March 29, 1988 states at 
paragraph 2, "At a time prior to approximately the middle of November, 1986, Chang 
C. Tsuei told me a measurement he made on T, superconducting material which he 
said were received from Georg Bednorz and K.A. Mueller, two physicists working for 
IBM Corporation in Zurich, Switzerland... Chang Tsuei said that he had measured 
resistivity versus temperature of these samples." This is again further evidence that 
the Mueller Bednorz superconducting samples were in the United States prior to the 
middle of November 1986." 

At page 1 1 of EA in the paragraph labelled i, the Examiner states "the 
applicants argue that Sung II Park affidavit of March 30. 1988 states at para. 4 that 
measurements were taken of a superconductive sample on or before November 9, 
1986, to the best of affiants recollection, or no later than November 15. 1986. The 
document evidence is not deemed to support that argument, however." In the 
paragraph marked (1) on page 11 of PA, the Examiner states "plots of those 
measurements are missing. See the Cheng C. Tseui affidavit of March 30, 1988, 
para. 6." This statement comes directly out of Cheng Tseui's declaration. 
Notwithstanding. Cheng Tseui's declaration says the measurements were made, that 
the plots that were taken were missing. The last sentence of this paragraph states "I 
believe that they may have been inadvertently thrown away when the laboratory was 
subsequently extensively cleaned." The Examiner further states "a hand-drawn 
diagram with the indication of a vacuum pumped down on November 9, 1988 also is 
not deemed to show that the measurements were taken." The Examiner is referring to 
paragraph 5 of the Cheng Tseui declaration and exhibit C which contains the hand- 
drawn figure. 



YO987-074BY 



23 



Ser. No. 08/303,561 



At paragraph (2) of page 1 1 of EA, thie Examiner points to cablegrams sent by 
Dr. Greene to applicants in Zurich which are attached as exhibit B to his declaration. 
The Examiner states "Dr. Greene reports that no indication of superconductivity has 
been seen in his specific heat measurements for temperature 4-35°K." The Examiner 
fails to note that in the same cablegram dated November 11, 1986, Dr. Greene states 
"this is not really too surprising given the very broad transition to have found in 
resistivity and susceptibility." The Examiner acknowledges that "exhibit C has pages 
dated December 1, 1986 on in exhibit D, which actually has plots and resistance 
versus temperature dated as early as December 3, 1986." The Examiner is conceding 
that high T^ superconductivity was measured on the samples which the very same set 
of cablegrams and affidavit say were in the United States in the middle of November 
1986. Consequently, by the Examiner's own admission, samples which were in the 
United States were clearly shown to be superconducting as of December 3, 1986. 
Consequently, the samples that were in the United States as of November 9 were 
inherently superconducting. It is clear from the same declarations that applicant's 
were communicating with Dr. Greene. It is noted that Dr. Greene's cablegram dated 
November 25, 1986 to applicants states he will resume work on the new 
superconductor and that not much will happen because of the Thanksgiving holiday 
until the following week. There are cablegrams dated November 26, December 1, 
December 2, 1986 related to high T, superconductivity. Dr. Greene's exhibit C has 
notebook pages dated December 1, 1986 to December 5, 1986. The December 5, 
1986 shows T, of 26°K and 30°K. Exhibit D show a plot of R vs. T dated December 
8, 1986. Clear reduction to practice is shown and clear diligence is shown from prior 
to the date of the Asahi Shinbum article. This was clearly done in close 
correspondence with the applicants. Thus, the facts clearly show applicant's can 
swear behind the Asahi Shinbum reference. 



YO987-074BY 



24 



Ser. No. 08/303.561 



At paragraph ii on page 1 1 of EA, the Examiner states "the applicant's assert 
that the Asahi Shinbum article reports a third parties confirmation of their original 
discovery. That assertion appears to be correct, but the article is still deemed to be 
prior art under 35 USC 102(a). At page 12 under paragraph 2, subparagraphs A, B 
and C, the Examiner made comments in regards to four cases applicant's have cited 
in support of their position that the Asahi Shinbum article should not be prior art 
because to hold it as prior art would not afford applicant's the benefit the one year 
grace period provided them under 35 USC 102(b). 

At paragraph 3 on page 13 of EA, applicant's respectfully disagree that the 
earliest date with which applicant's can show for their invention in this country is 
December 1986. Numerous affidavits which applicant's have submitted clearly show 
that applicant's have, in early November 1986, the superconducting compounds which 
the Examiner admits in applicant's data of December 3, 1986 shown the 
measurements of critical temperatures. Consequently, the Examiner's statement 
acknowledges the Examiner's apparent agreement in the fact that the materials were 
in this country in the middle of November 1986. Applicant's respectfully disagree with 
the Examiner's statement, "notwithstanding the possible uniqueness of the present 
facts, however, the Asahi Shinbum article is still deemed to be prior art under 35 USC 
102(a), which the applicant's have not been able to overcome with a showing of early 
date in this country or showing of their direction and control over the work done by the 
third party." Applicant's note that the Asahi Shinbum article provides no enablement 
but merely is an assertion of a result achieved which points to applicant's own work 
which was reported in the article applicant's cite in their application at page 6. 
Consequently, any description in the Asahi Shinbum article is applicant's own work. If 
one would follow the rationale of the Examiner, if an applicant publishes an article and 



YO987-074BY 



25 



Ser. No. 08/303,561 

some other third party reports that same result prior to applicant's filing of a patent 
application, (which is subsequently filed within one year of applicant's own publication) 
the reporting of applicant's work by the third party would be prior art against 
applicant's application. Such a result would deny applicant's the one year grace 
period provided under 35 USC 102(b). 

In view of the changes to the claims and the remarks herein, the Examiner is 
respectfully requested to reconsider the above-identified application. If the Examiner 
wishes to discuss the application further, or if additional information would be required, 
the undersigned will cooperate fully to assist in the prosecution of this application. 

Please charge any fee necessary to enter this paper to deposit account 09-0468. 

If the above-identified Examiner's Action is a final Action, and if the above-identified 
application will be abandoned without further action by applicants, applicants file a 
Notice of Appeal to the Board of Appeals and Interferences appealing the final 
rejection of the claims in the above-identified Examiner's Action. Please charge 
deposit account 09-0468 any fee necessary to enter such Notice of Appeal. 



R^pectfbi| 



illy submitted 



(j -<^. - /\ff cmy) 

Daniel P. Morris 
Reg. No. 32,053 




IBM Corporation 

Intellectual Property Law Dept. 

P.O. Box 21 8 

Yorktown Heights, N.Y. 10598 
(914) 945-3216 



YO987-074BY 



26