Appeal No. 96-0541
Application 08/034,845
The Examiner argues on page 3 of the supplemental answer
the Appellant's "claims never require that the first substrate
and the first array of linear electrodes to be adjacent with
each other, and the second substrate and the second array of
linear electrodes are adjacent to each other." The Examiner
further states:
Even though Figure 2 of Miyake does not show the
second linear electrode array 25 is directly on the
second substrate 21, Figure 2 of Miyake is broadly
interpreted by the Examiner to include a first
substrate (22)having a first array of linear
electrodes (24) thereon, a second substrate (21)
having a second array of linear electrodes (25)
thereon (phosphor screen 29, cell barrier 23, layers
28, 27, and electrodes 25 are interpreted to be
included in the substrate 21).
Appellant responds to these Examiner's arguments on page
2 of the supplemental reply brief that Appellant's claims
require a linear electrode array directly thereon the second
substrate.
We note that Appellant's claim 7 recites "a first substrate
having a first array of linear electrodes thereon." We
further note that Appellant's claim 7 recites "a second
substrate having a second linear electrode array thereon." We
note that the Appellant has argued that this claim language
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007