Appeal 2007-0129
Application 09/810,225
is not subject to degradation when the coated phosphor is exposed to UV
rays, such as when the phosphors are employed in a phosphor screen of a
working plasma display device. See Bechtel at col. 1, ll. 34-61.
In each of the stated rejections, the Examiner contends Bechtel
teaches that aluminate phosphors benefit from protective coatings that
increase their operative lifetimes. Based on that common contention made
in each of the separate rejections, the Examiner asserts that it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to
coat aluminate phosphors with an aluminum compound-containing coupling
agent as allegedly disclosed by Sigai (first rejection) or as allegedly
suggested by the combined teachings of Kasenga and Mizuta.
Appellants contend that the Examiner has not discharged the burden
of establishing the prima facie obviousness of the claimed subject matter.
More particularly, Appellants maintain that the Examiner has not furnished a
reasonable suggestion or motivation that would have led one of ordinary
skill in the art to combine Bechtel with the other applied references in the
manner proposed in the separately stated rejections so as to arrive at the here
claimed subject matter.
For each of the stated rejections, a principal issue raised in this appeal
is whether the Examiner has discharged the burden of establishing that it
would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
treat aluminate phosphors with a coupling agent comprising an aluminum
compound based on the combined teachings of the applied references.
We answer that question in the negative, and we will not sustain the
Examiner’s rejections on this record for reasons stated in Appellants’ Briefs
and as further discussed below.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013