Appeal No. 96-2276
Application 08/128,622
6-7 and pg. 9, lines 5-6). Clearly, Ragland’s shadow mask is
deformed when the frame or skirt expand, bend, or otherwise
react to thermal increases. Accordingly, in Ragland, the
function of preventing deformations of the shadow mask is not
performed.
The examiner would further urge us to read “preventing
deformations” as any corrective action which results in the
overall reduction of deformations. (Answer, pg. 12). The
examiner has interpreted the claim to mean, that inherent
deformations of the mask corrected by further deforming the
mask results in overall prevention of deformation. However,
the specification regarding the two embodiments which describe
preventing deformations of a shadow mask does not suggest
deforming the mask to correct inherent deformations. In light
of the specification, we do not regard the examiner’s view as
a reasonable interpretation of the appellants’ claim.
For these reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim 13
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Ragland.
The remaining claims were rejected based on obviousness
under the assumption by the examiner that Ragland discloses an
apparatus which prevents deformations of a shadow mask. As
stated above, we disagree with the examiner that Ragland
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007