Appeal 2006-2258
Application 10/170,116
filters” since they “must to some extent filter light passing through the layers
according to the colors of the layers” (Answer 8).
Implicit in our review of the Examiner’s rejection for anticipation is
that the claim must first be correctly construed to define the scope and
meaning of any contested limitations. See Gechter v. Davidson, 116 F.3d
1454, 1457, 43 USPQ2d 1030, 1032 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Accordingly, we first
construe “color filter” to determine if this claimed term includes the red,
green, and blue phosphor layers disclosed by Haven.
The best guide for determining the meaning of any contested term is
usually the specification. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316,
75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Appellant’s
specification teaches that color filters were known in the art as a material
which “transmits light that is within the emission spectral region of the
phosphor formed thereon and absorbs ambient light in other spectral regions,
providing a gain in color contrast” (Specification 1:[0004]). If, as contended
by the Examiner, phosphors were within the scope of the term “color filter,”
there would be no gain in color contrast with the filter being the same
material as the phosphor. Therefore we cannot accept the Examiner’s claim
construction since it would include materials which fail to meet the
definition of “color filter.”
For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the Examiner has failed
to establish a prima facie case of anticipation of claims 1, 2, 8, and 11.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007