Appeal No. 96-2985
Application No. 08/332,620
Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Watanabe in view of Hasker.
Claims 5, 6 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as2
being unpatentable over Watanabe in view of Thomas.
Reference is made to the brief and the answer for the
respective positions of the appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and we will reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 2, 3,
5 through 7 and 10.
According to the examiner (Answer, pages 3 and 4):
Watanabe discloses a cathode (figure 1) which
has a matrix body (1) impregnated with an alkaline
earth compound (line 63 of column 3) and a top coat
(5 and 6) which comprises a high melting point metal
(line 21 of column 2). The top coat has a first
metallic layer
(5) which is in contact with the matrix body and a
second layer (6) of different composition (ln 21 of
col 4).
Watanabe does not specifically state that the
first layer comprises a high melting point metal and
scandium and that the second layer is a metallic
sealing layer and it comprises a high melting point
metal. However, in lines 24 and 25 of column 5,
2Inasmuch as claim 6 depends from claim 2, a proper
rejection of claim 6 must include Hasker.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007