Appeal No. 1997-3967
Application No. 08/482,058
from a canceled claim, 22, and it is unclear whether “contact”
on line 2 of claim 27 refers to “contact hole.”
For their part, at page 4 of the brief, appellants
acquiesce in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph. Accordingly, we will, pro forma, sustain the
rejection of claims 25 through 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph.
We now turn to the rejections based on 35 U.S.C. § 103.
With regard to the rejection of claims 14, 16, 19, 21,
23, 26 and 28 over Denda, we will sustain this rejection for
the reasons set forth by the examiner at page 4, and then
again, at pages 5-6 in the response to arguments section. We
also elaborate on the examiner’s reasoning as follows.
Appellants contend that Denda does not disclose nor
suggest the claimed “filaments.” They suggest that film 16
and dielectric 9 can form no “filaments” because film 16 of
Denda is not adjacent the outer edges of the emitter electrode
and the base dielectric layer. Appellants also contend that
because film 16 of Denda is continuous, it is not in the form
of a filament. We disagree. The claims of interest do not
specify the thickness of the claimed “filaments” nor do they
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007