Appeal 2007-1448
Application 10/601,325
surface” as required by claim 1. In that regard, the gettering loop is attached to the
spider through a positive connection e.g., welding (see col. 2, line 27), at the
support finger(s) 26 of the spider 18, and not by bracing the loop into place using
the elastic deformation force of the clip in the manner claimed.
Misono is equally deficient in this regard in that the legs 7 of the conductive
spacer 7, are “secured” and not braced to the electron gun. (Finding of Fact 7).
Accordingly, we agree with Appellants that the combination of Pohle and
Misono fail to teach a flexurally rigid connection “sufficient to both brace a getter
in the first section and brace a second section in the inner surface by the elastically
deformable nature of a flexurally rigid connection, a first section, and a second
section as claimed.” (Emphasis original) (Br. 6) While the Examiner reasonably
interpreted the term “brace” as the pressure connection between the outwardly
biased legs 22 and the inner wall of the container 11 in Pohle, Pohle does not fairly
suggest “bracing” the getter in the clip.
Notwithstanding the deficiencies of Pohl and Misono, we reject claims 1-7,
11-13 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Pohle in view of
Wisniewski. Appellants’ only challenge to Pohle is that it “discloses a gettering
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013