Appeal No. 96-0763 Page 12 Application No. 07/840,345 before us is directed to a method of manufacture, “comprising.” The claim is open to additional steps such as the utilization of a second substrate following application of the metal film in the process of forming a color filter. The use of two substrates in this art is entirely conventional as taught by Hatano Figure 1, 12 and 19, and by Yanagisawa, Figures 5 and 10, 11 and 12. Accordingly, a second glass substrate may be added after the metal shielding. We conclude that the language of the claimed subject matter does not preclude a shielding layer being adjacent to a second substrate. DECISION The rejection of claims 1, 7, 10, 11, and 14 through 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hatano in view of Yanagisawa and further in view of EPA’412 is affirmed. The rejection of claims 1, 6, 7, 9 through 11 and 14 through 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hatano in view of Yanagisawa and further in view of EPA’412, and further in view of EPA‘218 is affirmed. The rejection of claims 6 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing toPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007