Appeal 2006-2258
Application 10/170,116
Therefore we REVERSE the rejection of claims 1, 2, 8, and 11 under
§ 102(b) over Haven.
B. The Rejections under § 103(a)
The Examiner applies Haven as discussed above (Answer 4). The
examiner has construed claims 5 and 12 as requiring an arrangement where a
color filter is deposited between the faceplate panel and the phosphor layer
(Answer 4, “EXAMINER’S NOTE”). The Examiner recognizes that Haven
does not disclose or suggest such an arrangement (id.). Therefore the
Examiner applies Koike for the teaching of a similar method of making a
phosphor screen on a faceplate having a light-absorbing matrix, where a
pigmented layer is placed between each color phosphor and the screen to
improve the color purity (id.). From these findings, the Examiner concludes
that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time
of Appellant’s invention to have deposited the color filter of Koike between
the faceplate and phosphor in the method of Haven to improve the purity of
the transmitted color (Answer 4-5). With regard to the rejection of claims 4
and 10, the Examiner additionally applies Yamato as evidence that fillers
were conventional additives for use in positive photoresists, such as the
photoresist taught by Haven (Answer 7).
Appellant presents the same arguments against Haven as discussed
above (Br. 8-9). However, these arguments are not persuasive since Koike
provides the motivation (improved color purity) to modify the method taught
by Haven. We also note that Appellant admits that it was known in the art to
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007