Appeal 2006-2237
Application 10/153,764
the deposition of a pigment layer or color filter between the faceplate panel
and phosphor layer of Haven, as taught by Koike, would have been obvious
to one of ordinary skill in this art at the time of Appellant’s invention to
increase color purity. Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s finding
that Koike teaches the heating/drying of each pigment layer after it is
deposited on the faceplate panel (Answer 4-5, citing Koike, col. 7, ll. 6-19).
Appellant argues that Irita does not describe or suggest the claimed
method but is directed to color filters formed of silver halide light-sensitive
layers coated with a water impermeable protective layer (Br. 22-23). As
correctly stated by the Examiner (Answer 10), Irita was applied for its
teaching that the adhesion of an overlying protective layer on a color filter
was improved by adding colloidal silica in sizes as small as 1 nanometer
(nm) to the color filter layer. The Examiner notes that Appellant has not
challenged this finding (id.). See Irita, col. 15, ll. 20-27.
For the foregoing reasons and those stated in the Opinion in Appeal
No. 2006-2258, 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 obviousness within the meaning of § 103(a). Accordingly, we
AFFIRM each ground of rejection on appeal based on § 103(a).
C. Summary
The rejection of claims 3, 4 and 8 under § 112, second paragraph, is
REVERSED. The rejection of claims 1, 5, 6, 10 and 11 under § 103(a) over
Haven and Koike is AFFIRMED. The rejection of claims 12-14 under
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007