Appeal No. 96-1478
Application 08/232,459
acknowledges that Al O and SiO have different optical2 3 2
properties, but relies on the inherent property which would
result from the substitution of one film or another (EA6).
Appellants argue that Iwasaki does not teach the formation
of a black matrix layer on an inner surface of a face plate
of a CRT (Br14). Appellants further argue that Iwasaki does
not disclose Al O and SiO as "equivalents in terms of index2 3 2
of refraction nor in terms of antireflection properties"
(emphasis omitted) (Br16).
We disagree with the examiner's reasoning that the
claimed invention would have been obvious because
substitution of a SiO layer for the Al O layer in Kato2 23
would inherently provide an antireflective property. First,
the examiner's use of inherency in the obviousness rejection
is based on hindsight. "That which may be inherent is not
necessarily known. Obviousness cannot be predicated on what
is unknown." In re Spormann, 363 F.2d 444, 448,
150 USPQ 449, 452 (CCPA 1966). A retrospective view of
inherency is not a substitute for some teaching or
suggestion supporting an obviousness rejection. See
In re Newell, 891 F.2d 899, 901, 13 USPQ2d 1248, 1250 (Fed.
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007