Appeal No. 98-0250
Application No. 08/201,963
wherein said emitter responsive to said gate emits said
electron beam, said beam propagating to said gate and through
gap in said gate, to said lens and through gap in said lens.
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Hughes et al. (Hughes) 3,436,584 Apr. 1,
1969
Kane et al. (Kane) 5,191,217 Mar. 2,
1993
Jones et al. (Jones) 5,475,280 Dec. 12,
1995
(effective filing date Mar. 4,
1992)
Claims 9 through 14 and 16 through 32 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kane in view
of Jones and Hughes.
Reference is made to the final rejection, 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 the obviousness rejection of claims 9 through 14, 16
through 22 and 28 through 32 is reversed because these claims
are too indefinite for an obviousness determination, and the
obviousness rejection of claims 23 through 27 is reversed
because these claims are not obvious based upon the teachings
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007