Appeal No. 1998-2910
Application No. 08/500,282
a reply brief, to respond, if appellant so desired. The
record does not show any reply brief filed by appellant.
With regard to the substantive nature of the claimed
invention, appellant agrees that Kumar 200 discloses an
electron emitter including a substrate and a layer of doped
amorphous diamond [brief-page 7] but argues that there is no
teaching in any of the applied references of the substrate
"having a textured surface," as recited in the claims.
Although the examiner does not point to anything in particular
in the Kumar 200 disclosure related to a "textured surface" of
the substrate, the examiner does argue, convincingly, in our
opinion, that all surfaces of substrates are "textured" to
some extent unless stated to be otherwise. Appellant does not
respond to this cogent reasoning but merely notes that no
applied reference teaches a substrate with a "textured
surface."
In our view, the examiner is correct in the assessment
that all substrates have a textured surface, to some extent.
If the textured surface of the instant invention is somehow
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007