Appeal No. 95-1473
Application No. 07/997,279
activated phosphor only rather than this phosphor in combination
with the manganese-activated halophosphate (which generally
corresponds to the here claimed phosphors). This disclosure not
only would have suggested that phosphor suspensions of the type
here claimed and disclosed by the Admitted Prior Art and
Westinghouse are different from those of Ropp but also that the
beneficial results taught by Ropp to attend use of ammonia
compounds with his phosphor suspensions would not be expected
with respect to the suspensions under consideration.
With further regard to this matter, we are aware of the
examiner’s position that “this phosphor [i.e., the phosphor
claimed by the appellants and disclosed by the Admitted Prior Art
and Westinghouse] contains Sb and Mn activators that are
susceptible to oxidation during lehring, which oxidation would be
minimized by the addition of ammonium chloride” (Answer, page 3).
However, we find no evidence of record and the examiner points to
none which supports the proposition that “Sb and Mn activators
... are susceptible to oxidation during lehring, which oxidation
would be minimized by the addition of ammonium chloride.” In the
absence of such evidence, the examiner’s position cannot be
accepted as well founded.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007