Appeal 2007-0129
Application 09/810,225
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Examiner carries the initial burden of
establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d
1468, 1471-72, 223 USPQ 785, 787-88 (Fed. Cir. 1984). As part of meeting
this initial burden, the Examiner must determine whether the differences
between the subject matter of the claims and the prior art “are such that the
subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention
was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art”, 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a)(1999); Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 14, 148 USPQ 459,
465 (1966). The applied prior art references as a whole must be viewed
from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art to determine whether
“some suggestion” is present to arrive at the claimed subject matter. Cf.
In re Mills, 470 F.2d 649, 651, 176 USPQ 196, 198 (CCPA 1972).
All of the rejected claims require a process wherein an aluminate
phosphor is mixed with a coupling agent that includes an aluminum
compound, and then calcined.
Sigai forms an aluminum oxide coating on a phosphor particle to
extend the lumen maintenance of a fluorescent lamp. Sigai theorizes that the
principal cause of light output reduction with time in a fluorescent lamp is
due to mercury exposure and the formation of mercury compounds on the
surface of phosphor layers in such devices. Sigai at col. 1, ll. 15-48. The
Examiner acknowledges that Sigai does not disclose coating aluminate
phosphors.
As noted above, Bechtel is specifically directed to coating aluminate
phosphors particles with one or more catena-polyphosphates. Bechtel
teaches that the coated phosphors are useful in plasma display devices
(PDD), as the coating does not degenerate upon UV exposure encountered in
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013