Appeal 2007-3363
Application 10/342,711
accepted on the basis of attorney argument. Without the context provided by
evidence, we cannot assess how one skilled in the art would view these
problems. Although Takahashi pursues the selective pigment approach
instead, it suggests that in some applications increasing stimulating radiation
intensity may be necessary or appropriate.
Agfa argues that those in the art would expect the white pigment and
the blue pigment to cancel each other because white would increase
sensitivity at the cost of resolution, while blue would do the opposite.
(Spec. 8.) Hell teaches (¶045) that one white pigment, titanium dioxide, is
used in high resolution screens so there is no inherent conflict between white
pigment and high resolution.
Agfa argues that those in the art know that the phosphors of Takahashi
and Hell work completely differently, so their teachings cannot be
combined, but Agfa provides only attorney argument that this difference
would be significant to those in the art. (Br. 9.) In any case, a person having
ordinary skill in the art reading Takahashi would understand that its teaching
applies to any phosphor that emits light in response to stimulating radiation
after having been exposed to radiation. (Takahashi 7:25-30.) Takahashi
relies on the art to teach the phosphor because Takahashi is focused on the
use of a selective pigment to avoid absorbing light emitted by the phosphor.
(Takahashi claim 1.)
Those in the art would appreciate that any suitable phosphor could be
used in Takahashi's screens. Hell purports to have produced superior
phosphors for such screens. Since Takahashi and Hell solve different
problems for the same screens, those in the art would appreciate the
advantages of using both teachings.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013