Appeal 2006-2258
Application 10/170,116
form color filter layers between the faceplate panel and the color-emitting
phosphor in order to enhance the color contrast of the luminescent screen
(Specification 1:[0004]). Appellant also argues that Koike “teaches away”
from the claimed method since this reference forms color filters without the
need for photosensitive blocking layers (Br. 10). This argument is also not
persuasive. The Examiner acknowledges that Koike does not teach
depositing the color filter layers while using a photosensitive blocking layer
(Answer 4 and 9). However, the Examiner has applied Haven for the
teaching of using a photosensitive blocking layer to minimize phosphor
contamination and thus Koike is not relied upon to show this claimed
limitation (Answer 4; see Haven, abstract and col. 3, ll. 59-66).
Appellant argues that Yamato “only describes photoinitiators
including additives” (Br. 18). However, Appellant does not contest the
Examiner’s finding that Yamato teaches that fillers were conventional in the
art (Answer 7). We also note that Appellant has not contested the
Examiner’s “official notice” regarding the art recognition that colors, filters
and/or phosphor screens can be applied in any order (Answer 6-7).
For the foregoing reasons and those stated in the Answer, we
determine that the Examiner has established a prima facie case of
obviousness in view of the reference evidence. Based on the totality of the
record, including due consideration of Appellant’s arguments, we determine
that the preponderance of evidence weighs most heavily in favor of
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007