Appeal No. 2006-0780
Application No. 10/331,716
desired properties. Appellants have not directed us to
evidence that the Libman method of applying phosphor to a
substrate is different from the subject matter of claim 1.
Claims 10, 11 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over the combined teachings of Libman and Rasmussen
‘773. Claims 12 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over the combined teachings of Libman, Rasmussen ‘773 and
Rasmussen ‘750. We affirm each of these rejections. For each
of these stated rejections Appellants argue that the additional
references, Rasmussen ‘773 and Rasmussen ‘750, do not remedy
the deficiency of the primary reference. Appellants have not
challenged the Examiner’s findings regarding the specific
references or the suitability of their being combined with the
Libman reference. Since Appellants have not challenged the
Examiner’s motivation for combining the Rasmussen references
with Libman, we presume that they are in agreement with the
Examiner that there is motivation to use the teachings of these
references together. Consequently for the reasons stated above
when discussing the rejection over the Libman reference and the
reasons presented in the Answer by the Examiner we affirm these
rejections.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007