Ex Parte Goldstein et al - Page 4



                Appeal 2006-2258                                                                             
                Application 10/170,116                                                                       

                filters” since they “must to some extent filter light passing through the layers             
                according to the colors of the layers” (Answer 8).                                           
                      Implicit in our review of the Examiner’s rejection for anticipation is                 
                that the claim must first be correctly construed to define the scope and                     
                meaning of any contested limitations.  See Gechter v. Davidson, 116 F.3d                     
                1454, 1457, 43 USPQ2d 1030, 1032 (Fed. Cir. 1997).  Accordingly, we first                    
                construe “color filter” to determine if this claimed term includes the red,                  
                green, and blue phosphor layers disclosed by Haven.                                          
                      The best guide for determining the meaning of any contested term is                    
                usually the specification.  See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316,                  
                75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).  Appellant’s                                
                specification teaches that color filters were known in the art as a material                 
                which “transmits light that is within the emission spectral region of the                    
                phosphor formed thereon and absorbs ambient light in other spectral regions,                 
                providing a gain in color contrast” (Specification 1:[0004]).  If, as contended              
                by the Examiner, phosphors were within the scope of the term “color filter,”                 
                there would be no gain in color contrast with the filter being the same                      
                material as the phosphor.  Therefore we cannot accept the Examiner’s claim                   
                construction since it would include materials which fail to meet the                         
                definition of “color filter.”                                                                
                      For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the Examiner has failed                   
                to establish a prima facie case of anticipation of claims 1, 2, 8, and 11.                   


                                                     4                                                       




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007