Appeal No. 1999-0392 Page 4
Application No. 08/548,759
Kawamura does not discuss that the film has a light scattering effect, but the examiner
maintains that the film of Kawamura would intrinsically have a light scattering function. (See
answer at pages 3-4.) We disagree with the examiner conclusion with respect to the
scattering of the external light. Further, appellants argue that Kawamura does not scatter the
external light. We agree with appellants. Appellants identify that Kawamura at pages 4-5 that
the reflection preventive layer prevents external light from being reflected by the inner surface
of the faceplate and Kawamura shows ray L in Figure 2 traversing into the CRT as ray L and
4
not being scattered. Therefore, we cannot agree with the examiner’s conclusion with respect
to the intrinsic scattering of the external light, and we cannot sustain the rejection of
independent claim 1.
The examiner maintains the claimed structure is “structurally indistinguishable form [sic,
from] the prior art structure.” (See answer at page 7.) We assume that the examiner means
the prior art structure of Kawamura since Nishimura does not teach the film on the internal
faceplate of the CRT. Appellants argue that Kawamura does not disclose that the scattering
of the external light on the internal surface of the faceplate citing pages 5 and 6 of Kawamura.
(See reply brief at pages 3-8.) We agree with appellants analysis of the express teachings
of Kawamura and find that the examiner has not provided a convincing
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007