Appeal No. 2006-0549
Application No. 10/181,184
relates to the field of illumination using an LED as the light source. Although Lebens
teaches that such LEDs can be used in a portable flashlight, the teachings are much
more general than that. Lebens discloses that his invention also relates to the art of
providing high intensity LEDs in the visible spectrum, infrared or ultraviolet [column 5,
lines 42-50]. Lebens also teaches that the described LEDs have application in the art of
viewing fluorescing materials [column 6, lines 39-42]. Thus, we find that Lebens is
analogous prior art because it relates generally to the field of illuminating objects.
We also do not agree with appellants’ argument that there is no motivation to
combine the teachings of Lebens with the teachings of Jones. The portion of Jones relied
on relates to the illumination of objects which either reflect ultraviolet light or fluoresce in
response to such illumination in order to determine the authenticity of the object. Jones
does not suggest that there is any special light source required other than it provide
illumination in the ultraviolet range. Thus, the artisan would have been motivated to
select an appropriate UV light source to illuminate such objects. As noted above, Lebens
teaches that a UV LED provides an advantageous light source for illumination of
documents which fluoresce. Therefore, we agree with the examiner that the artisan
would have been motivated to use UV LEDS as the light source in Jones because these
UV LEDs have advantages over conventional light sources as taught by Lebens and it
was known to use UV illumination to illuminate documents as required in Jones.
In summary, we have sustained the examiner’s rejection of the claims on appeal.
Therefore, the decision of the examiner rejecting claims 4 and 7-10 is affirmed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007