Appeal 2006-2237
Application 10/153,764
33 F.3d 1354, 1361, 31 USPQ2d 1754, 1759 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Although
technically “pigments” include any substances which impart color, black or
white, to materials,1 we agree with Appellant that one of ordinary skill in
this art would have recognized, from the examples of alumina and silica, that
“non-pigmented” meant “non-colored” oxide particles. See Xerox Corp. v.
3Com Corp., Appeal No. 04-1470, Fed. Cir. June 8, 2006. Therefore one of
ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the scope of this language
includes non-colored oxide particles whether or not these materials are
classified as “pigments.” Accordingly, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 3, 4 and 8 under § 112, second paragraph.
B. The Rejections under § 103(a)
The Examiner lists every step recited in claim 1 on appeal, and finds
that Haven discloses every step of the method of manufacturing color filters
except for steps D, F and I, namely Haven does not explicitly state that the
faceplate panel is heated to a first, second, and third temperature after each
color filter is applied to their respective set of fields (Answer 3-4). The
Examiner finds that Koike teaches that, after depositing photosensitive
phosphors or pigment slurries, the slurries may be dried by heating to a
temperature such as 120 degrees C. before exposure (Answer 4). 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 dried the
photosensitive phosphor compositions of Haven as taught by Koike (Answer
5).
1 See Hackh’s Chemical Dictionary, 3rd ed., p. 659, The Blakiston Co., Inc.,
1953.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007