Appeal No. 1998-0873
Application 08/301,279
By contrast, the phosphor coated product produced by
the other disclosed prior art process of heating a linear
phosphor-coated tube to its working temperature and then
bending it (specification, pp. 3-4), is not the same as the
phosphor coated product produced by Appellant's claimed
process of dragging a nozzle through the tube while pumping
phosphors onto the tube because bending after coating causes
the efficiency of the phosphors to be diminished and causes
cracks in the phosphor coating, whereas Appellant's process
does not create these problems. Thus, the structural
properties of the phosphor layer are different and the
product is different.
The APA states that a uniform coating has not been
achieved with "S" shaped or "M" shaped tubes. Thus, the
product of claims 8, 9, 12, and 13 is different from the APA
because it impliedly has a more uniform coating than the
APA.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 7-13 is reversed.
A new ground of rejection is entered as to claims 7,
10, and 11 pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.196(b).
- 8 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007