Appeal No. 96-1083
Application 08/150,099
F.3d 1087, 37 USPQ 2d at 1239 (Fed. Cir. 1995), citing W. L.
Gore & Assocs., v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d at 1551, 1553, 220
USPQ at 311, 312-13 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
The other reference, Verstegen, also does not cure
this deficiency. It merely deals with the different types of
luminescent materials which can be used as luminescent coating
in a low-pressure mercury vapor discharge lamp.
We conclude that the rejection of claim 1 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 over Hartai and Verstegen is not sustainable.
Since claims 2, 3, 5 and 9 depend on claim 1, their rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Hartai and Verstegen is also not
sustainable.
We now treat the other independent claim, namely
claim 10. Claim 10 calls for a liquid crystal display which
employs the low-pressure mercury vapor discharge lamp of claim
1, and contains at least the same limitation: “the length of
the discharge path being at least 250 times and at most 1000
times the internal diameter of the lamp vessel.” [Claim 10,
lines 13 to 15].
The Examiner has rejected this claim under 35 U.S.C.
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007