Appeal No. 1998-0551
Application No. 08/299,292
Claim 23 merely adds language to the intended use, not
affecting the claimed lamp fill material itself, thus we will
sustain the Examiner’s rejection as to this claim.
With respect to claim 24, as noted by the Examiner at
column 4, lines 40-48, Evans prefers coated pellets, which
implies the use of uncoated pellets is known. Since claim 24
is subject to a 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection, a specific teaching
is not required as to uncoated pellets. Accordingly, one of
ordinary skill in the art would have inferred from the context
of Evans, that uncoated pellets (ones that stick to surfaces
as noted in Evans’ discussion of prior art) were known in the
art. Thus, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim
24, directed to an uncoated lamp fill material per se.
With respect to claims 25 through 28, Evans lacks the
specifics recited, and as noted supra, the Examiner has
provided no evidence that the specifics disclosed for indium
hold true for zinc. Thus, we will not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 25 through 28.
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the Examiner
rejecting claims 17 through 23 and 42 through 44 under 35
99
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007