Appeal No. 2003-1656
Application No. 09/725,973
In the last sentence on page 8 of the brief, the Appellants
seem to argue that no reason exists for forming Oozu’s infrared
filter layer 315 as a planarizing layer “since Oozu’s color
filter layer 314 upon which it is formed is already formed as a
planarized layer which provides no need for a planarizing layer
formed thereupon”. We do not find and the Appellants do not
identify any disclosure in the Oozu reference which supports the
aforequoted assertion that patentee’s color filter layer 314 “is
already formed as a planarized layer”. Moreover, the Examiner has
expressly and repeatedly disagreed with this assertion (see pages
4, 6 and 7 of the answer), and the Appellants have filed no reply
to this disagreement by the Examiner. Under these circumstances,
the Appellants’ assertion that Oozu’s layer 314 is formed as a
planarized layer lacks perceptible accuracy.
In any case, even if assumed to be correct, the Appellants’
assertion would not forestall an obviousness conclusion. That is,
regardless of whether Oozu’s layer 314 is a planarized layer as
asserted by the Appellants, a planarizing function still would have
been desirable at the top surface of patentee’s infrared filter
layer 315 so as to ensure that the subsequent microlens layer
formed thereon would be uniform pursuant to the desideratum of
Chiulli. In this way, Chiulli’s desideratum for a uniform layer
55
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007