Appeal No. 1998-0888
Application 08/314,036
Third, Appellants argue that Spindt does not teach the
use of an anode plate having independently controlled sections
(Br5). This argument is related to the second argument. As
noted, claim 1 does not recite independently controlled
sections.
Lastly, we note that claim 1 recites "a single anode
coupled to said emitter plates." This limitation does not
require that the single anode structure is a single anode
plate; compare claim 9 which recites "only one anode plate."
A single anode could be plural anode plates electrically
connected together.
Because we find that Spindt does not disclose the claimed
"at least two emitter plates," the Examiner has failed to
establish a prima facie case of anticipation. The rejection
of claims 1-6 is reversed.
35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Claim 9 recites, in part, "a plurality of emitter plates,
each emitter plate including plural microtip electron
emitters; only one anode plate coextensive with the emitter
plates . . . ." Except for the emitter plate including plural
- 7 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007