Appeal No. 96-1839 Page 4
Application No. 08/024,610
Mr. Kalweit and numerous definitions presented by the Examiner and appellants, it is clear
that the term “electroluminescent” has a different definition than “fluorescent.” The
specification discusses an electroluminescent display and electroluminescent light source
(Background of the Invention at page 1.) From the discussion in the specification, it would
be unreasonable to interpret electroluminescent to be the same as fluorescent or vice
versa. It is clear that the claim sets forth a limitation regarding the electroluminescent
panel which is not taught by the prior art applied against the claims.
Appellants further argue that it would not have been obvious to make a backlit
display using an electroluminescent panel in light of the teachings of the use of fluorescent
light in the prior art. (See brief at pages 10-11.) We make no finding regarding whether it
would have been obvious to substitute an electroluminescent panel as back light in a
2
display device for the fluorescent light taught by the three prior art references since the
Examiner has not presented an argument thereto in the Examiner’s answer.
Since we find that the fluorescent light as taught in the prior art references is not an
electroluminescent light source, then the “fluorescent” tube light and potting material
cannot meet the limitation of the “electroluminescent” panel as set forth in claim l.
2With respect to McCartney, the patent is silent to the light source, but the McCartney article filed
on Mar. 7, 1994 by appellants discusses fluorescent lamps as conventional for backlighting.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007