Appeal 2007-0274
Application 10/011,629
The Appellants invented a reticle adapted for use in a scope wherein
photoluminescent material is deposited on at least a portion of the reticle.
Claim 1 is representative of the claimed subject matter and reads as follows:
1. In a reticle adapted for use in a scope, the improvement comprises
a quantity of photoluminescent material that emits light after a light source
has been removed, wherein the material is deposited on at least a portion of
said reticle within a housing of the scope.
The references set forth below are relied upon by the Examiner as
evidence of obviousness:
Friedrich US 1,302,353 Apr. 29, 1919
Rickert US 3,320,671 May 23, 1967
Jensen US 4,889,660 Dec. 26, 1989
Barone US 5,671,539 Sep. 30, 1997
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): claims 1, 2, and 6-14 are rejected over
Friedrich in view of Barone; claims 3-5, 15, 17-27, and 72 are rejected over
Friedrich, Barone, and Jensen; and claim 73 is rejected over Friedrich,
Barone, Jensen, and Rickert.
It is the Examiner's basic position that it would have been obvious for
one with ordinary skill in this art to replace the radium-luminescent material
on the reticle of Friedrich with a photoluminescent material in view of
Barone (Answer 5). The Appellants argue that no prima facie case of
obviousness exists because Barone is non-analogous art (Replacement Br.
17-18; Reply Br. 17-18) and that any prima facie case of obviousness which
may exist is refuted by secondary considerations relating to long-felt need
(Replacement Br. 19-22; Reply Br. 11-14) and commercial success
(Replacement Br. 25-28; Reply Br. 15-16).
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013