Appeal No. 2006-0780
Application No. 10/331,716
Claims 1, 48 and 49 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Libman.2
The Examiner finds Libman describes a process of applying
phosphor particles to a substrate including the step of
submerging the substrate into a binder solution. The Examiner
recognizes that Libman does not describe the removal rate of
the substrate from the binder, however, the Examiner asserts
that the substrate must necessarily be removed from the bath
and therefore must have a removal rate. (Answer, p. 6).
Appellants do not argue that Libman does not disclose
emerging a substrate coated with phosphor particles into a bath
comprising a binder. Rather, Appellants argue that the rate of
removal of the substrate from the binder was not based upon at
least one property of the binder solution. (Brief, p. 11).
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive. Libman
discloses that the binder is used to provide the substrate the
ability to withstand further processing steps. (Col. 10, ll.
25-30). Thus, the application of the binder solution must
necessarily be at a rate that provides the substrate with the
2 Appellants have not presented separate arguments for the
rejected claims. Therefore we select claim 1 as representative
of the rejected claims.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007