Ex Parte Hardinger et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 14, 2008

10839461 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 14, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte DAVID A. HARDINGER and DAVID G. PIRES
____________

Appeal 2008-3723
Application 10/839,461
Technology Center 2800
____________

Decided: August 14, 2008
____________

Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, TERRY J. OWENS, and
ROMULO H. DELMENDO, Administrative Patent Judges.

OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
The Appellants appeal from a rejection of claims 1-5, which are all of
the pending claims. In the Examiner’s Answer the Examiner states that
claim 2 is objected to but would be allowable if rewritten in independent
form (Ans. 4).
THE INVENTION
The Appellants claim a textured electroluminescent panel. Claim 1 is
illustrative:
1. A textured EL panel comprising:
a translucent sheet having a first major surface and a second major surface;
Appeal 2008-3723
Application 10/839,461

flock disposed on said first major surface; and
EL lamp materials disposed on said second major surface.

THE REFERENCE
Kennedy US 3,395,058 Jul. 30, 1968
THE REJECTION
Claims 1 and 3-5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over
Kennedy.1
OPINION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection.
The Appellants argue only claim 1 (App. Br. 2-4; Reply Br. 4-5).2
We therefore limit our discussion to that claim. Claims 3-5, which depend
from claim 1, stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)
(2007).
Kennedy discloses an electroluminescent lamp comprising a
transparent or translucent electrode (3) (which corresponds to the
Appellants’ translucent sheet having a first major surface and a second major
surface), a thin woven glass cloth (8) on the first major surface (which
corresponds to the Appellants’ flock disposed on the first major surface),3
and, disposed on the second major surface, an electroluminescent

1 A rejection of claims 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over US 6,261,633 to
Burrows is withdrawn in the Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 2).
2 The pages of the Reply Brief are unnumbered. The Reply Brief’s page
numbers herein have been provided by the Board.
3 The Appellants state that Kennedy’s transparent electrode 3, which
preferably is woven glass fiber cloth (col. 3, ll. 73-75), is flock (App. Br. 3).
Hence, Kennedy’s glass cloth 8 also is flock.
2
Appeal 2008-3723
Application 10/839,461

material (1) (commonly phosphor) and an aluminum foil electrode (2)
(which correspond to the Appellants’ EL lamp materials disposed on the
second major surface) (col. 2, ll. 21-25; col. 3, ll. 33-41; col. 3, l. 73 – col. 4,
l. 2; fig. 3).
The Appellants argue that Kennedy’s transparent or translucent
electrode 3 cannot correspond to both the Appellants’ translucent sheet and
flock (App. Br. 3).
As pointed out above, Kennedy’s translucent electrode 3 corresponds
to the Appellants’ translucent sheet, and Kennedy’s woven glass cloth 8
corresponds to the Appellants’ flock.
The Appellants argue (Reply Br. 4) that their term “lamp materials” is
defined in their Specification at page 3, lines 9-11, which states: “The EL
lamp materials include a front electrode, a phosphor layer, a dielectric layer,
and a rear electrode.”
Those are the EL lamp materials required by the Appellants’ claim 2
which depends from claim 1. According to the doctrine of claim
differentiation, the term “EL lamp materials” in claim 1 must be broader
than the term as more specifically set forth in claim 2. Hence, the “EL lamp
materials” in claim 1 can be Kennedy’s phosphor 1 and electrode 2, which
are EL lamp materials as indicated by the fact that they are two of the EL
lamp materials set forth in the Appellants’ Specification (Spec. 3:9-11) and
claim 2.
For the above reasons we are not convinced of reversible error in the
Examiner’s rejection.

3
Appeal 2008-3723
Application 10/839,461

DECISION
The rejection of claims 1 and 3-5 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over
Kennedy is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal maybe extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED

tc

PAUL F. WILLE
DUREL DIVISION ROGERS CORPORATION
2225 W. CHANDLER BOULEVARD
CHANDLER, AZ 85224

4