Appeal No. 96-2391
Application 08/002,286
closed end where the electron emissive material is situated.
Thus, Buescher is similar to the prior art in that the electrons
are emitted axially from the closed end; however, Buescher does
not teach varying the thickness of the sidewall along the central
axis. Buescher also discloses that its cathode cap cannot be
used with a conventional support sleeve, and instead, requires a
separate support assembly such as shown in its Fig. 3. Thus,
Buescher does not overcome the deficiencies of Larson and also
provides an additional reason why its teachings would not be
combined with the conventional sleeve of the admitted prior art.
Falce is cited for its teachings of using an eyelet and
spider arrangement for holding the heating means within the
cathode sleeve. Beyond this teaching, Falce offers nothing which
can be used to overcome the deficiencies in combining the
admitted prior art with Larson or with Beuscher.
Thus, we are again constrained to conclude that the
artisan would have found no motivation for combining the applied
references unless the artisan were attempting a hindsight
reconstruction of the claimed invention. Since the examiner has
not articulated a reasonable rationale for combining the
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007