Appeal No. 1998-1779
Application No. 08/658,447
Still further, at column 3, lines 32-36, Deal teaches away from the claimed invention
by disclosing that where the concentration is above about 0.02 weight percent, the
coating may be mottled, iridescent or the transmission otherwise adversely affected. A
reference that teaches away from the claimed invention can not serve to create a prima
facie case of obviousness. In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 31 USPQ2d 1130 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Whereas we will not sustain the rejection of claim 1, we will not sustain the rejection
of claims 2-11, 16 and 18-23 which depend therefrom.
The Rejection of Claims 17, 24 and 25
We will sustain the rejection of claims 17, 24 and 25. We agree with appellants that
the prior art does not teach varying the density of a dye in a light absorbing layer or teach
varying the density of a dye as defined in dependent claims 24 and 25. However, Itou
does disclose utilizing a dye in a light absorbing layer on the front panel of a CRT to
control luminance and the skilled artisan in the art would have recognized that luminance
(brightness) variations on the front panel could be counterbalanced by varying the density
of the dye in the light absorbing layer so as to produce uniform luminance. We take
official notice of the fact that brightness distortion is produced by picture tubes1. A
conclusion of obviousness may be made from the common knowledge and common
sense of the person of ordinary skill in the art without any specific hint or suggestion in a
particular reference. In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA
1969).
1 Television Engineering, Donald G. Fink, McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., New York,
1952, page 51.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007