Appeal No. 2003-1249
Application 09/386,972
The appellant’s specification (page 9, lines 9-19) indicates
that Itoh’s cleaning pressure of about 10-7 Torr falls within the
appellant’s pressure range of at most about 10-8 Torr. Although
Itoh’s introductions of reducing gas interrupt his few to several
minute periods of cleaning using electron emission from the
cathode, Itoh’s total time of cathode electron emission is the
sum of several repeats of periods of a few to several minutes
each. Thus, Itoh’s total cathode electron emission time
approaches or equals the appellant’s minimum field emission
device operating time of 15 minutes.
We remand the application to the examiner for the examiner
and the appellant to address on the record whether, because
Itoh’s cleaning pressure is within the appellant’s range, Itoh’s
cathode electron emission time approaches or equals that of the
appellant, Itoh provides additional cleaning using several
introductions of reducing gas, and after cleaning the device
Itoh, like the appellant, evacuates the device and seals it by
pinching off a tube, the device produced by Itoh’s method is the
same or substantially the same as that of the appellant.2
2
2 The examiner also should consider, with respect to the
appellant’s method and device claims, Japanese patent application
laid-open publication no. 299129/1990 discussed by Konuma
(col. 2, lines 31-39).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007