Appeal No. 97-2820
Application No. 08/432,443
appears to depend more upon the choice of the manufacturer, and
the convenience and availability of the machines and tools
necessary to construct the inline electron gun rather than any
inventive concept (see In re Lockhart [, 190 F.2d 208, 210,]
90 USPQ 214-216 [CCPA 1951]).” The examiner concludes (Answer,
page 4) that “it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art that the inline gun of Greninger is a fully functional
equivalent to the claimed inline electron gun.” Appellants argue
(Brief, page 4) that:
The fact is that Claim 7 claims more than just a two
part construction. Claim 7 includes a “first part”
that has “four spaced ledges”, which are not disclosed
in Greninger, and a “second part” that has “four
corners, each corner including an offset”, also which
are not disclosed in Greninger. The claimed structure
has more features than would be required simply to form
each of the Greninger main focus lens electrodes out of
two separate parts.
The obviousness rejection of claims 3, 6 and 7 based upon the
teachings of Greninger is reversed because of the correctness of
appellants’ argument.
The obviousness rejection of claim 4 is reversed because the
non-circular inline aperture teachings of Gerlach do not cure the
noted shortcomings in the teachings of Greninger.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007