Appeal No. 96-0541
Application 08/034,845
1540, 1548, 220 USPQ 303, 309 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied,
469 U.S. 851 (1984).
After a careful review of both Miyake and Grier, we fail
to find any teaching of discharge channels as recited in
Appellant's claims 7 through 15. Therefore, we will not
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 7 through 15 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Miyake and Grier.
Claims 7 through 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Miyake, Tannas, Buzak and Grier.
Appellant argues on pages 1 and 2 of the reply brief that
the Examiner improperly read the Miyake's element 21 as the
claimed "second substrate". Appellant points out that Miyake
discloses in Figure 2 that both electrode arrays 24 and 25 are
on the same substrate 22. Appellant further points out that
Miyake's element 21 does not have any electrode on it, but
rather
Figure 2 shows that element 21 has a phosphor layer or
fluorescent screen 29 thereon.
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007