Appeal No. 2003-1442
Application No. 09/359,037
methodologies to selectively control or otherwise manipulate the
rate of decay or quenching. This is emphasized by the teaching
at column 3, lines 21 through 25 where it teaches that by the use
of infrared source 114 and LCD array 108 in Figure 1, they emit
certain patterns through the lens 116 that impinge the phosphor
screen dots 202 in Figure 2 where “each phosphor dot has its
response to the electron beam from electron gun 104 independently
adjusted by the strength of the modulated decay simulation
radiation.” The teaching value of Johnson of immediately
quenching the visible radiation from a luminescent material by
the use of infrared radiation clearly teaches the ceasing to
convert requirement of independent claim 12, the ceasing to emit
visible light of claim 15 and the feature of a luminescent
material not emitting visible light when irradiated by a second
energy source of claim 42 on appeal. We thus find unpersuasive
appellants’ arguments in the brief and reply brief as to this
rejection.
Therefore, we sustain the rejections of claims 12, 13, 15
though 17, 42, 45, 48, 49 and 57 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Johnson. The independent claims depending
from independent claims 1, 15 and 42 have not been argued by
appellants.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007