Appeal 2006-2924
Application 10/668,522
ANALYSIS
Inasmuch as Solomon expressly states that the disclosed writing
system is applicable to stationery (FF3) but does not provide any detailed
description of an embodiment of the invention directed to stationery (FF4),
the Examiner relies on the teachings of Ristow for details of one type of
stationery, namely, a greeting card in combination with a gift holder.
Appellants do not challenge the Examiner’s determination that Ristow
would have suggested providing ink readable in visible light on the
stationery embodiment of Solomon’s writing system to yield an aesthetically
pleasing greeting card that would allow a desired message to be conveyed to
all viewers of the card (FF7).
The Examiner contends that it would have been obvious to use a UV
LED, a UV light source known at the time of Appellants’ invention, as
evidenced by Funk (FF8), to reduce the amount of heat generated and energy
required to power the light source and to allow the light source to last longer
(Answer 4) and, further, that it would have been within the skill in the art to
use a single UV LED to reduce the amount of power required and to reduce
the cost of the device (Answer 4). Appellants do not allege that one skilled
in the art would not have appreciated the energy savings and cost efficiency
offered by a UV LED over a UV bulb. Rather, Appellants argue that Funk
only teaches an array of diodes, not a single diode, that the size and cost of a
hybrid light of the type taught by Funk is impractical in the context of a
greeting card, that Solomon elected to exclude UV LEDs as a possible light
source, and that linkage of a UV light with a substrate is contrary to the
security objective of Solomon (Br. 4-5).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013