Appeal 2007-1770
Application 10/632,289
layer, respectively, wherein two source locations of the three source
locations for each of the second and third exposure steps are asymmetrically
located with respect to the inner source positions.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references to show
unpatentability:
Yamazaki EP 0,146,226 Jun. 26, 1985
LaPeruta US 6,013,400 Jan. 11, 2000
The Examiner rejects claims 1-8 and 13-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over LaPeruta in view of Yamazaki.
Appellants organize their arguments under separate headings, each
heading listing a group of claims. For each group, Appellants point out that
LaPeruta does not describe what is claimed, further point out that LaPeruta
uses only two source locations to expose the photoresist, and contend that
the claims are, therefore, patentable over LaPeruta. Appellants then contend
that Yamazaki teaches away from what is claimed by disclosing that three
equidistant source locations be used for exposing the stripes of light
absorbing material, and, therefore, the claims are patentable over Yamazaki.
Finally, Appellants contend that “since LaPeruta et al. discloses a method of
manufacturing a light-absorbing matrix for a cathode ray tube in which each
of first, second and third guardbands [of light-absorbing material] are
formed using only two source locations for each of first, second and third
exposure steps and Yamazaki et al. discloses using three equidistant source
locations for exposing the stripes of light absorbing material, the
combination of these references does not describe Appellants' method” as
recited the claims (Br. 10; see also Br. 14, 18, 22, and 24-25).
For each group of claims, the Examiner contends that the claimed
subject matter is suggested by the combination of prior art because LaPeruta
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013