Appeal No. 2006-0549
Application No. 10/181,184
the brief have not been considered and are deemed to be waived [see 37 CFR §
41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004)].
The examiner’s rejection is based on the examiner’s findings that Jones teaches
the claimed invention except for the use of an LED as the UV light source. The examiner
finds that the artisan would have been motivated to use a UV LED as disclosed by
Lebens since Jones does not limit the type of UV light source and since UV LEDs have
known advantages [answer, pages 4-6].
Appellants argue that Lebens is not analogous prior art with respect to their
invention because it is not in the field of appellants’ endeavor and is not reasonably
pertinent to the problem solved by appellants. They also argue that there is no teaching,
suggestion or motivation to combine Lebens with Jones from within the prior art
references, the knowledge of the artisan or from the nature of the problem to be solved
[brief, pages 11-15].
The examiner responds that Lebens is analogous prior art because the artisan
would have looked to UV LEDs to solve the known problems of regular UV lamps as
described in appellants’ specification. The examiner also responds that the motivation to
combine comes from Lebens’ teaching that UV LEDs have considerable advantages for
many different applications and the knowledge generally available to the skilled artisan.
The examiner also notes that Lebens teaches that such LEDs are readily used to view
fluorescing materials such as taggants, stamps, security codes and security seals
[answer, pages 6-8].
We will sustain the examiner’s rejection of the claims on appeal. We do not agree
with appellants’ argument that Lebens is non-analogous art. The Lebens invention
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007