Appeal No. 95-2751
Application No. 07/885,107
Dougherty are, indeed, not in the corners, as required by the
instant claims, but holds that to “shift the location of the
thinner areas to the corners would be well within the skill of
one versed in the CRT art” [answer-page 5]. We find the
examiner’s position to be unreasonable. The location of the
thinner areas in the corners is clearly critical to the
instant claimed invention. As described in the disclosure
[see, for example, the abstract], the “corner walls of the CRT
funnel are made with thinner walls to provide an increased
compliance of the normally very rigid corners of the funnel-
to-panel seal area.” Thus, there is a specific, disclosed,
purpose for having thinner areas in the corners, as claimed,
and the examiner has not set forth any cogent reasoning as to
why the skilled artisan would have modified the prior art to
provide for such.
The examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1 and 5 through
8 under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) and claims 2 through 4 under 35
U.S.C. 103 is reversed.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007