Appeal No. 1996-2769
Application 08/270,089
were not know [sic, known] at the time Royce et al[.] was filed.” Id., last sentence. The
examiner then turned to Hewes, a patent which was said to disclose a method of making
the specifically claimed composition (Y Yb Er O S) and, thus, the broadly claimed
0.86 0.08 0.06 2
composition, in a sulfur-containing atmosphere. Id., p. 5. According to the examiner,
Hewes also “teaches that a mixed rare earth oxide formed by coprecipitating can to
converted to oxysulfides.” The examiner concluded that it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art “to produce the oxysulfide compounds of Hewes by the method of
Royce et al[.], where the oxide is produced by coprecipitation for the reasons given in
Royce et al. Thus, the combination suggests producing rare earth activator couple [sic,
couples] containing rare earth oxysulfides by coprecipitating a Yb, Er and one of La, Y or
Gd oxalate, converting the oxalate to an oxide by heating it in air at 800-1200EC [Hewes:
col. 3, lines 38-45] and then converting the oxide to an oxysulfide by the method of Royce
et al.” Id.
The examiner states that the combination of Royce and Hewes is lacking in that the
patents “do not teach nor suggest the claimed method of producing the taught precursor
oxides of Hewes which are treated by the process of Royce et al[.], nor is there any
teaching nor suggestion of the phosphors having the claimed morphology.” Id. To that
end, the examiner argues that Matijevic discloses “a process from [sic, for] producing
colloidal, uniform sized spherical rare earth oxide phosphor particles which are used as
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007