Ex parte CHAU et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 30, 1998

07997279 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 30, 1998)

Application for patent filed December 23, 1992.1
1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today (1)
was not written for publication in a law journal and (2) is not
binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 10
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte CHUNG-NIN CHAU, STEVEN C. FOWLER, JOHN S. TULK,
PAUL W. SALVI, TRACY V. SILLOWAY and KAREN LEE
__________
Appeal No. 95-1473
Application No. 07/997,2791
__________
ON BRIEF
__________
Before KIMLIN, GARRIS and OWENS, Administrative Patent Judges.
GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal from the final rejection of
claim 7. The only other claims remaining in the application,
which are claims 1 through 5 and 8, have not been appealed.
The subject matter on appeal relates to an aqueous coating
suspension for a fluorescent lamp comprising particles of an
Appeal No. 95-1473
Application No. 07/997,279
2
alkaline earth chlorofluorophosphate phosphor activated by
antimony (and manganese) and from about 0.5 to about 3 percent by
weight based upon the weight of the phosphor of ammonium chloride
for suppressing halogen loss from said phosphor during lamp
manufacture and improving lamp maintenance. Further details of
this appealed subject matter are readily apparent from a review
of non-appealed independent claim 1 and appealed claim 7 which
depends therefrom, and a reproduction of these claims is set
forth below:
1. An aqueous coating suspension for a fluorescent lamp
comprising particles of an alkaline earth chlorofluorophosphate
phosphor activated by antimony and manganese, water, at least one
water soluble binder, and additional ingredients selected from an
oxide adherence promoter, defoaming agent and a surface active
agent depending on the desired characteristics of said aqueous
suspension, and a sufficient amount of ammonium chloride for
suppressing halogen loss from said phosphor during lamp
manufacture and improving lamp maintenance.
7. An aqueous coating suspension according to claim 1
wherein said amount of ammonium chloride comprises from about 0.5
to about 3 percent by weight based upon the weight of said
phosphor.
The following prior art is relied upon by the examiner as
evidence of obviousness:
Vodoklys et al. (Vodoklys) 3,470,106 Sep. 30, 1969
Ropp 3,679,452 Jul. 25, 1972
Dutch application 7,506,340 Dec. 16, 1975
(Westinghouse)
Appeal No. 95-1473
Application No. 07/997,279
3
The prior art coating suspension described in the “Background Of
The Invention” section of the appellants’ specification (Admitted
Prior Art).
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the Admitted Prior Art or Westinghouse in view
of Ropp and Vodoklys.
We refer to the Brief and to the Answer (which incorporates
the Office Action mailed July 27, 1993 as Paper No. 4) for a
complete exposition of the opposing viewpoints expressed by the
appellants and the examiner concerning the above noted rejection.
OPINION
For the reasons which follow, we cannot sustain the
rejection advanced on this appeal.
We agree with the appellants that Ropp would not have
suggested providing a phosphor suspension of the type here
claimed and disclosed in the Admitted Prior Art and Westinghouse
with ammonium chloride. This is because these types of phosphor
suspensions are different from the phosphor suspensions taught by
Ropp to be improved by addition of ammonium chloride thereto. In
this regard, we reiterate the appellants’ point concerning Ropp’s
disclosure at lines 38 through 56 in column 3 wherein the amount
of ammonia compound used is based on the amount of stannous tin
Appeal No. 95-1473
Application No. 07/997,279
4
activated phosphor only rather than this phosphor in combination
with the manganese-activated halophosphate (which generally
corresponds to the here claimed phosphors). This disclosure not
only would have suggested that phosphor suspensions of the type
here claimed and disclosed by the Admitted Prior Art and
Westinghouse are different from those of Ropp but also that the
beneficial results taught by Ropp to attend use of ammonia
compounds with his phosphor suspensions would not be expected
with respect to the suspensions under consideration.
With further regard to this matter, we are aware of the
examiner’s position that “this phosphor [i.e., the phosphor
claimed by the appellants and disclosed by the Admitted Prior Art
and Westinghouse] contains Sb and Mn activators that are
susceptible to oxidation during lehring, which oxidation would be
minimized by the addition of ammonium chloride” (Answer, page 3).
However, we find no evidence of record and the examiner points to
none which supports the proposition that “Sb and Mn activators
... are susceptible to oxidation during lehring, which oxidation
would be minimized by the addition of ammonium chloride.” In the
absence of such evidence, the examiner’s position cannot be
accepted as well founded.
Appeal No. 95-1473
Application No. 07/997,279
5
Similarly, we find no evidence and the examiner points to
none specifically in support of his viewpoint expressed in the
first paragraph on page 4 of the Answer that the phosphors under
consideration “are known to be lehring sensitive and hence the
use of ammonium compounds including ammonium chloride in coating
compositions containing them to minimize adverse effects of
lehring would have been suggested therefrom.” Indeed, Ropp’s
disclosure in column 3 evinces the contrary as earlier explained.
As a consequence, we do not share the examiner’s aforequoted
viewpoint.
As for Vodoklys, it is the examiner’s opinion that “this
reference teaches the reheating of Sb and Mn alkaline earth
halophosphate phosphor with ammonium chloride at temperatures
used to coat fluorescent lamps and hence it is considered to be
an obvious expedient to include ammonium chloride in the coating
composition since the reheating would be effected during lamp
preparation” (Answer, pages 4-5). We cannot agree. The
reheating step of Vodoklys’ process (e.g., see lines 31 through
35 in column 2) includes temperatures that are generally higher
and times that are significantly longer than those of the lehring
step in a lamp preparation process (e.g., see the Westinghouse
reference). For this reason, there would have been no reasonable
Appeal No. 95-1473
Application No. 07/997,279
6
expectation that ammonium chloride would successfully achieve the
results taught by Vodoklys in the relatively mild environment of
a lehring step. In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 904, 7 USPQ2d
1673, 1681 (Fed. Cir 1988) (for obviousness under § 103, a
reasonable expectation of success is required).
In light of the foregoing, we cannot sustain the examiner’s
§ 103 rejection of claim 7 as being unpatentable over the
Admitted Prior Art or Westinghouse in view of Ropp and Vodoklys.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
EDWARD C. KIMLIN )
Administrative Patent Judge)
)
)
)
BRADLEY R. GARRIS ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
TERRY J. OWENS )
Administrative Patent Judge)
Appeal No. 95-1473
Application No. 07/997,279
7
Elizabeth A. Levy
Osram Sylvania Inc.
100 Endicott Street
Danvers, MA 01923