Appeal No. 2001-2124
Application No. 09/416,914
We shall also affirm the rejection of claims 7 and 8 as further relying upon a reference
to Lehmann. Lehmann discloses a europium activated calcium sulfide phosphor. See column
2, lines 14-15 and claim 6. Lehmann discloses in column 1, lines 24-27 that “[f]or
cathodoluminescent applications, the energy efficiencies of the alkaline-earth metal sulfide
phosphors are equal to the best efficiency levels obtained with other types of phosphors, such
as zinc sulfide.” Inasmuch as Schulze teaches and discloses the utilization of zinc sulfide
phosphors, column 2, line 4 and Example 3, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary
skill in the art to have substituted the alkaline earth metal sulfide phosphors for zinc sulfide
phosphors. Inasmuch as the appellant arguments are the same as those presented with respect
to the previous rejection, which arguments have been responded to in our analysis, we
conclude that the examiner has established a prima facie case of obviousness against the
claimed subject matter.
The Rejection under § 103(a) of claims 13-17
We shall not sustain the balance of the rejections of claims 13 through 17. Each of
the claims before us requires “dry mixing” inorganic particles with coating particles. The
examiner relies upon the disclosure of Schulze at column 3, lines as providing basis for, “some
dry mixing of the phosphor and coating particles.” See Answer, page 8. We find that
Schulze teaches: ”[I]t is preferred to dry the mixture with agitation to prevent agglomeration
of the phosphor while the mixture is in the blender dryer. The drying is done preferably by
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007