Appeal No. 95-1473
Application No. 07/997,279
The prior art coating suspension described in the “Background Of
The Invention” section of the appellants’ specification (Admitted
Prior Art).
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the Admitted Prior Art or Westinghouse in view
of Ropp and Vodoklys.
We refer to the Brief and to the Answer (which incorporates
the Office Action mailed July 27, 1993 as Paper No. 4) for a
complete exposition of the opposing viewpoints expressed by the
appellants and the examiner concerning the above noted rejection.
OPINION
For the reasons which follow, we cannot sustain the
rejection advanced on this appeal.
We agree with the appellants that Ropp would not have
suggested providing a phosphor suspension of the type here
claimed and disclosed in the Admitted Prior Art and Westinghouse
with ammonium chloride. This is because these types of phosphor
suspensions are different from the phosphor suspensions taught by
Ropp to be improved by addition of ammonium chloride thereto. In
this regard, we reiterate the appellants’ point concerning Ropp’s
disclosure at lines 38 through 56 in column 3 wherein the amount
of ammonia compound used is based on the amount of stannous tin
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007