Appeal No. 2006-1434
Application No. 10/356,621
flexible binder. . . .” The preamble of a claim does not limit the scope of the claim when
it merely states a purpose or intended use of the invention. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d
1475, 1479, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1994). We do not find anything in the
three process steps set forth in claim 1 that is specific to phosphor particles that are
“embedded in a flexible binder.” The method of claim 1 is not limited to processing of
storage phosphors that are embedded in a flexible binder. Appellants’ arguments fail
because the relevant preamble recitations merely state a purpose or intended use for
the process that is claimed.
We therefore sustain the § 103 rejection of the claims over Huston and
Papadopoulos. Further, even if the recitation of “embedded in a flexible binder” were to
limit the subject matter of instant claim 1, we would not consider appellants’ arguments
to be persuasive.
Huston teaches a doped glass matrix (e.g., col. 4, ll. 22-65) that may be
incorporated in flexible materials such as fabric, paper, or plastic (e.g., col. 3, ll. 30-35).
Appellants allege, but do not show, that incorporation in the flexible materials cannot be
considered as being within the meaning of phosphor particles “embedded in a flexible
binder.”
Further, even if we assume the particles are embedded in a glass matrix and
cannot be considered to also be embedded in materials such as fabric, paper, or plastic,
appellants’ arguments remain unpersuasive. Appellants contend that “flexible” as used
in the instant invention means “capable of being flexed.” (Appeal Brief at 4-5.)
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007