Ex parte KUSUNOKI et al. - Page 4




          Appeal No. 96-3843                                                          
          Application No. 08/430,144                                                  


          Gallaro et al. (Gallaro)           3,891,440                June            
          24, 1975                                                                    
          Libman                        4,392,077                July  5,             
          1983                                                                        
               Claims 4 through 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103                
          as being unpatentable over Libman in view of Gallaro.                       
               Reference is made to the briefs and the answer for the                 
          respective positions of the appellants and the examiner.                    
                                       OPINION                                        
               We have carefully considered the entire record before us,              
          and we will sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 4                   
          through 8.                                                                  
               Libman discloses (Figure 5) a panel 78, a phosphor screen              
          86, 88 and 90, and a color filter layer 98, 100 and 102                     
          sandwiched between the phosphor screen and an inner surface of              
          the panel.  The phosphors 86, 88 and 90 “emit, when excited,                
          red, green and blue light, respectively” (column 7, lines 20                
          through 22).  The color filters 98, 100 and 102 “have a body                
          color corresponding generally to the color of light emitted by              
          the associated phosphor layer” (column 7, lines 46 through                  
          48).                                                                        
               Appellants argue (Brief, page 5) that “[c]learly, claim 4              

                                          4                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007