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 to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007