Appeal No. 2003-1932 Page 7
Application No. 09/436,179
In light of the above discussion, we do not find appellants’
argument of a lack of teaching or suggestion of the here claimed
process in the applied references to be persuasive. While we
recognize that Bruno is directed to a somewhat different method
of forming a luminescent material composition, Bruno does teach
the pH range at which a conversion to hydroxide would be
expected. Moreover, Tamatani suggests a pH in the alkaline range
for the formation of magnesium hydroxide. Appellants have not
furnished any evidence that would tend to suggest that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have gone in a different
direction in selecting a suitable alkaline pH not withstanding
the clear teachings of Tamatani and Bruno.
Having reconsidered the evidence of obviousness advanced by
the examiner in light of appellants’ arguments, we determine that
the examiner’s obviousness presentation outweighs the arguments
thereagainst as presented in the briefs. Hence, we shall affirm
the stated rejected.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the examiner to reject claim 5 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tamatani in view of
Bruno is affirmed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007