Appeal No. 96-2138
Application 07/967,607
of radiated energy" (Examiner's Answer, page 3). However, we
agree with appellant that the examiner provides no factual
support for this statement. Motivation for a modification may
come from what is known to the person of ordinary skill or from a
specific teaching in the reference. See In re Oetiker,
977 F.2d 1443, 1447-48, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1446-47 (Fed. Cir. 1992)
(Nies, C.J., concurring). However, there must be some evidence
in the record that the examiner can point to as motivation, not
merely any made-up reason. Because the examiner provides no
convincing reasons for adding a quad-phosphor blend to the
alkaline earth metal halophosphor blend in McSweeney, we conclude
that the examiner has failed to set forth a prima facie case of
obviousness with respect to independent claim 1.
It is noted that appellant's admitted prior art of a first
base layer of a halophosphate phosphor blend and a second layer
or skin coat of a tri-phosphor blend (specification, page 1) is a
closer reference than McSweeney because it has two blends.
However, there still needs to be some reason for substituting a
quad-phosphor blend in combination with the halophosphor blend.
Appellant further argues that the resulting proposed
combination does not meet all of the limitations recited in
independent claim 1, specifically, "[t]he quad-blend of Northrop
et al contains europium activated strontium borophosphate and not
- 7 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007