Appeal No. 1996-2853
Application 08/375,272
decide whether the Examiner has shown the use of cured resins
to be obvious. For the same reasons noted supra with respect
to Arakawa, we conclude that claims 21, 24 and 27 (all
independent claims) would not have been obvious under 35
U.S.C. § 103 over Tsuchino.
We have also thoroughly reviewed Tsuchino and find no
teaching of a sintered stimulable phosphor (re: claims 21 and
24), although vapor deposition (re: claim 27) is taught at
page 14. We find no teaching of resin “impregnation” (re:
claims 21, 24 and 27) in Tsuchino (as argued by Appellants at
the top of page 4 of the reply brief) since the protective
layer is “coated” on (page 21). However, Arakawa would result
in a resin impregnated product since the resin is also used as
a binder and mixed with the phosphor before applying it to a
surface. The remaining claims on appeal also
contain the above limitations discussed in regard to claim 21,
24 and 27, and thereby, we will not sustain the rejection as
to these claims.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007