Ex Parte Parsapour

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 20, 2006

10170116 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 20, 2006)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not
written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte FARZAD PARSAPOUR
________________

Appeal 2006-2258
Application 10/170,116
Technology Center 1700
________________

Decided: September 20, 2006
________________

Before GARRIS, PAK, and WALTZ, Administrative Patent Judges.

WALTZ, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal from the Primary Examiner’s Final
Rejection of claims 1, 2, 4 through 8, and 10 through 13, which are the only
claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction pursuant to
35 U.S.C. § 134.
According to Appellant, the invention is directed to a method of
manufacturing a color filter on a luminescent screen assembly of a color
Appeal 2006-2258
Application 10/170,116

2
cathode-ray tube, where the color filter is formed between the faceplate
panel and the color-emitting phosphor with the use of a photosensitive
blocking layer (Br. 3-4). Claim 1 on appeal is representative of the
invention and is reproduced below:
1. A method of manufacturing a color filter on a luminescent screen
assembly for a color cathode-ray tube (CRT), comprising:

providing a faceplate panel having a patterned light absorbing matrix
thereon defining a first set of fields, a second set of fields and a third set of
fields;

forming a photosensitive blocking layer over the second set of fields
and the third set of fields;

applying a first color filter to the first set of fields; and

removing the photosensitive blocking layer in the second set of fields
and the third set of fields.

The Examiner has relied on the following references as evidence of
unpatentability:
Haven US 4,251,610 Feb. 17, 1981
Koike US 5,922,395 Jul. 13, 1999
Yamato US 6,004,724 Dec. 21, 1999

Claims 1, 2, 8, and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Haven (Answer 2). Claims 1, 2, 5-8, and 11-13 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Haven and Koike (Answer 4).
Claims 4 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Haven in view of Yamato (Answer 7) or Haven and Koike in view of
Appeal 2006-2258
Application 10/170,116

3
Yamato (Answer 8). Based on the totality of the record, we AFFIRM all
rejections on appeal based on § 103(a) essentially for the reasons stated in
the Answer, as well as those reasons set forth below. We REVERSE the
rejection on appeal based on § 102(b). Therefore the decision of the
Examiner is AFFIRMED.
OPINION
A. The Rejection under § 102(b)
The Examiner finds that Haven describes a method of manufacturing
a color filter on a luminescent screen assembly for a color cathode ray tube,
including the steps of providing a faceplate panel having a patterned light
absorbing matrix which defines a first, second, and third set of fields,
forming a photosensitive blocking layer over the second and third set of
fields, applying a first color filter (blue phosphor) layer to the first set of
fields, and removing the photosensitive blocking layer (Answer 3,
specifically citing column and line in Haven for each step as required for
claims 1 and 2 on appeal).
Appellant argues that Haven does not describe or suggest a method in
which the color filter is formed between the faceplate panel and the color
emitting phosphors (Br. 6). The Examiner states that this limitation is not
required by the claims in this rejection (Answer 4 and 8). The Examiner
considers the materials of Haven to be red, green and blue, even if they are
phosphors, but the Examiner finds that these phosphors read on “color
Appeal 2006-2258
Application 10/170,116

4
filters” since they “must to some extent filter light passing through the layers
according to the colors of the layers” (Answer 8).
Implicit in our review of the Examiner’s rejection for anticipation is
that the claim must first be correctly construed to define the scope and
meaning of any contested limitations. See Gechter v. Davidson, 116 F.3d
1454, 1457, 43 USPQ2d 1030, 1032 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Accordingly, we first
construe “color filter” to determine if this claimed term includes the red,
green, and blue phosphor layers disclosed by Haven.
The best guide for determining the meaning of any contested term is
usually the specification. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316,
75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Appellant’s
specification teaches that color filters were known in the art as a material
which “transmits light that is within the emission spectral region of the
phosphor formed thereon and absorbs ambient light in other spectral regions,
providing a gain in color contrast” (Specification 1:[0004]). If, as contended
by the Examiner, phosphors were within the scope of the term “color filter,”
there would be no gain in color contrast with the filter being the same
material as the phosphor. Therefore we cannot accept the Examiner’s claim
construction since it would include materials which fail to meet the
definition of “color filter.”
For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the Examiner has failed
to establish a prima facie case of anticipation of claims 1, 2, 8, and 11.
Appeal 2006-2258
Application 10/170,116

5
Therefore we REVERSE the rejection of claims 1, 2, 8, and 11 under
§ 102(b) over Haven.
B. The Rejections under § 103(a)
The Examiner applies Haven as discussed above (Answer 4). The
examiner has construed claims 5 and 12 as requiring an arrangement where a
color filter is deposited between the faceplate panel and the phosphor layer
(Answer 4, “EXAMINER’S NOTE”). The Examiner recognizes that Haven
does not disclose or suggest such an arrangement (id.). Therefore the
Examiner applies Koike for the teaching of a similar method of making a
phosphor screen on a faceplate having a light-absorbing matrix, where a
pigmented layer is placed between each color phosphor and the screen to
improve the color purity (id.). 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 deposited the color filter of Koike between
the faceplate and phosphor in the method of Haven to improve the purity of
the transmitted color (Answer 4-5). With regard to the rejection of claims 4
and 10, the Examiner additionally applies Yamato as evidence that fillers
were conventional additives for use in positive photoresists, such as the
photoresist taught by Haven (Answer 7).
Appellant presents the same arguments against Haven as discussed
above (Br. 8-9). However, these arguments are not persuasive since Koike
provides the motivation (improved color purity) to modify the method taught
by Haven. We also note that Appellant admits that it was known in the art to
Appeal 2006-2258
Application 10/170,116

6
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
Appeal 2006-2258
Application 10/170,116

7
obviousness within the meaning of § 103(a). Therefore we AFFIRM all
rejections on appeal based on § 103(a).
C. Summary
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 8, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over
Haven is REVERSED. The rejection of claims 1, 2, 5-8, and 11-13 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Haven and Koike is AFFIRMED. The rejections of
claims 4 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Haven in view of Yamato or
Haven and Koike in view of Yamato are AFFIRMED. Therefore, the
decision of the Examiner is AFFIRMED.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED

clj
Joseph S. Tripoli
THOMSON Multimedia Licensing Inc.
Two Independence Way, Patent Operations
Post Office Box 5312
Princeton NJ 08540-5312