Appeal No. 96-3843
Application No. 08/430,144
Libman , the examiner did not have to turn to the teachings of2
Gallaro to demonstrate the obviousness of the claimed
invention. Although the obviousness rejection is based on
Libman in view of Gallaro, it is permissible to affirm the
examiner’s rejection in light of Libman alone without
designating the affirmance as a new ground of rejection. See
In re Bush, 296 F.2d 491, 496, 131 USPQ 263, 266-67 (CCPA
1961). The obviousness rejection of claim 4 is sustained.
The obviousness rejection of claims 5, 6 and 8 is likewise
sustained because of appellants’ grouping of the claims
(Brief, page 5).
The obviousness rejection of claim 7 is sustained because
the color phosphors and the color filters in Libman are
“arranged in elongate strips.”
2We note in passing that prior art Figure 2 in Libman
discloses green, red and blue optically continuous color
filters 22 aligned with corresponding green, red and blue
color phosphors 20. The color filters 22 are sandwiched
between the color phosphors 20 and a faceplate panel 16.
Although the use of optically continuous color filters in
cathode ray tubes is known, Libman states (column 2, lines 47
through 56) that they are too expensive for commercial use.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007