Appeal 2006-2237
Application 10/153,764
Appellant repeats the same arguments against Haven and Koike for
each group of claims (Br. 10, 14, and 18 for Haven; Br. 11, 15, 17 and 18 for
Koike). Specifically, Appellant argues that Haven describes a “completely
different method” in which green-, blue- and red-emitting phosphors are
deposited on a faceplate (e.g., Br. 10). Appellant specifically argues that
Koike “teaches away” from the claimed invention because this reference
deposits red, green and blue photoresist filter layers “without the need for
photosensitive blocking layers” (e.g., Br. 11). Accordingly, Appellant also
argues that the combination of references does not describe the claimed
method (e.g., Br. 11).
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive for the reasons set forth in
our Opinion in related Appeal No. 2006-2258 (Appl. No. 10/170,116). We
adopt our claim construction of the term “color filters” from our previous
Opinion (Specification 1: ¶ [0004]). However, the Examiner has indicated
that Koike suggests the advantages of depositing color filters between the
faceplate panel and the phosphors to increase color purity (Answer 8; see
also Answer 6: Issue 3). We also note that Appellant admits that it was
known in the art to form color filters between the faceplate panel and the
color-emitting phosphor in order to enhance the color contrast of the
luminescent screen (Specification 1:[0004]).2 Therefore we determine that
2 It is axiomatic that admitted prior art in an Applicant’s Specification may
be used in determining the patentability of a claimed invention (In re
Nomiya, 509 F.2d 566, 570-71, 184 USPQ 607, 611-12 (CCPA 1975)); and
that consideration of the prior art cited by the Examiner may include
consideration of the admitted prior art found in an Applicant’s Specification
(In re Davis, 305 F.2d 501, 503, 134 USPQ 256, 258 (CCPA 1962); cf.,
In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039-40, 228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed. Cir.
1986)).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007