Appeal No. 1997-3280
Application No. 08/212,065
lines 53-58). This phrase is apparently relied upon by the
examiner as a motivation for using fluorescent film in either
of the Spencer patents. It is also the examiner’s position
that a second layer of phosphorescent material is provided
along with a retroreflective material. The examiner further
explains his position (answer, pg. 5) by specifying that "106
[sic] discloses a phosphorescent material and 100 discloses a
retroreflective material," thereby meeting the structural
limitations of appellants’ independent claim 11.
We find that the examiner has misinterpreted the Spencer
references. As stated in the answer on page 5, it is
examiner’s position that:
Appellants [sic] claimed "fluorescent,
retroreflective film" is disclosed in Fig. 5,
102, where 106 [sic] discloses a phosphorescent
material and 100 discloses a retroreflective
material. This structure meets Appellants [sic]
claim limitations because Spencer discloses in
col. 8, lines 5-9 that "a second layer 106 [sic]
of phosphorescent material is attached or joined
to the underlying surface of prism-like
formation and is generally coextensive with the
first layer 102."
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007