Appeal 2006-2924
Application 10/668,522
Appellants’ argument that linkage of a UV light with a substrate is
contrary to the security objective of Solomon is unsound. Solomon
expressly discloses the use of a UV light with the writing system. To the
extent that Appellants’ argument is directed to securement of a UV light to
the book, journal, stationery, or the like being contrary to the security
objective of Solomon, this argument is not directed to subject matter recited
in claim 1 and, thus, is not persuasive.
Appellants’ argument that Solomon elected to exclude LEDs
mischaracterizes Solomon’s teachings. Solomon discloses bulbs but does
not expressly exclude other forms of light sources. Simply that there are
differences between two references is insufficient to establish that such
references “teach away” from any combination thereof. See In re Beattie,
974 F.2d 1309, 1312-13, 24 USPQ2d 1040, 1042 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Given
Appellants’ characterization of UV LEDs as capable of relatively broad
angle illumination, within the context of the invention (FF2), there is nothing
in Solomon’s discussion of the UV bulb that would have dissuaded one of
ordinary skill in the art from selecting a UV LED in place of Solomon’s bulb
to illuminate the UV ink indicia.
Appellants correctly point out that Funk only discloses arrays of LEDs
(Funk, col. 6, ll. 36-37) and may well be correct that the extensive arrays of
sequentially energized light sources, including fluorescent, infrared, and UV
lights, disclosed for Funk’s document reader would be impractical in a
greeting card. The Examiner’s proposed modification, however, does not
appear to involve the use or association of such an elaborate system of
sequentially energized light sources with Solomon’s stationery.
Obviousness does not require that all of the features of the secondary
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013