Appeal No. 97-1932
Application 08/028,047
simply an exploded view of a monolithic structure.
Appellant’s argument that Oess does not teach or suggest a
monolithic structure is simply incorrect.
Since appellant has not persuaded us of error in the
examiner’s rejection of independent claim 25, we sustain the
rejection of claim 25. For reasons discussed above, claims 26
and 29-34 stand or fall with claim 25. Therefore, we also
sustain the rejection of claims 26 and 29-34.
We now consider the rejection of claims 27 and 28
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Oess in view of
Kishino and the admitted prior art. These claims relate to
the phosphor layer, and the examiner applies the admitted
prior art to teach the specifics of the phosphor layer.
Appellant argues that the admitted prior art does not teach a
monolithic structure [brief, page 14]. As noted above,
however, the monolithic structure is taught by Oess.
Appellant also simply asserts that the recitations of claims
27 and 28 are not suggested by the combination of references,
but appellant offers no further discussion in support of this
assertion. Since appellant has not persuaded us of error in
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007