Appeal No. 2006-0780
Application No. 10/331,716
Appellants argue that Benham does not teach or suggest
removing the substrate from the binder solution at “a rate
selected based upon at least one property of the binder
solution” (Brief, p. 8).
Appellants’ argument is not persuasive. Benham discloses
that the purpose of the invention is to provide high quality
and high efficient phosphor coatings. (Column 5, ll. 25-29).
Claim 10 of Benham discloses that suitable immersion times are
up to approximately five minutes. Thus, a person of ordinary
skill in the art would have recognized from the disclosure of
the Benham reference that the phosphor coated substrate should
have been submerged in the binding solution for a sufficient
time so as to provide the desired high quality and highly
efficient phosphor coatings. Appellants have not set forth a
specific removal rate or identified specific properties of the
binder solution used to determine the removal rate. As such,
Appellants have not described their invention in a manner that
avoids the teachings of the cited prior art.
The Examiner rejected claims 4-6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over the combined teaching of Benham, Endo and Evans. The
Examiner also rejected the subject matter of claim 7 under 35
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007