Appeal No. 1998-2188
Application No. 08/581,424
Kano et al. Further, both the outermost protective
layer of Kano et al. and the single protective layer
[of] Takasu et al. are formed of a fluorocarbon film
forming resin comprising polytetrafluoroethylene
(see column 12, lines 8-9, of Kano et al., and the
sentence bridging columns 7 and 8 of Takasu et al.).
Thus, the skilled artisan would have expected the
modified panel of the combination to exhibit the
moisture protection described by Kano et al. while
also realizing the benefits of reduced coefficient
of friction and increased resistance to abrasion
described by Takasu et al. Hence, the examiner
attests that appellants[’] specification was not
used as a guide to combine the prior art references
in the right way so as to achieve the results of the
claims. [Emphasis original.]
In light of Kano’s express selection of two moisture-
preventing layers that operate together to prevent moisture
from reaching the underlying layer of phosphor, we do not
agree with the examiner that the skilled artisan would have
changed the outermost protective layer to some other material
in the absence of evidence that it will function in exactly
the same manner as the original moisture-preventing layer.
Without such evidence, we agree with appellants (Brief, pages
5 and 6) that:
Indeed, Kano et al must have both of their
protective layers in order to realize the moisture
resistance necessary in their invention. Takasu et
al disclose nothing about any moisture-resistance
enhancing properties of their protective layer.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007