Appeal No. 2006-0780
Application No. 10/331,716
After consideration of the present record, we determine that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would not have recognized
the basis for determining improved adherence. As such the
Examiner’s rejection on this basis is affirmed.
THE PRIOR REJECTIONS
Claims 1-3, 8, 9, 48 and 49 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Benham in view of Endo.1
The Examiner finds that Benham describes a method of
applying phosphor particles to a substrate that differs from
the subject matter of claim 1 in that the rate of removal of
the substrate from the binder solution is not provided. The
Examiner properly recognizes that the substrate with the
applied phosphor particles is not maintained in a liquid state.
That is, the substrate is removed from immersion in the binder
solution. (Answer, p. 4; Benham, col. 5, lines 20-24). The
Examiner relies on the Endo reference for disclosing that
persons of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized
controlling the withdrawal rate from an immersion bath affects
the properties of the coated article. (Answer, p. 4).
1 Appellants have not provided separate arguments for the
rejected claims. Therefore, we select claim 1 as representative
of the rejected claims and will limit our discussion thereto.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007