Appeal No. 96-0107
Application 08/026,797
The added noise due to feedback effects from
the screen to the MCP will be reduced
proportional to the reduction in output open
area of the MCP. Reduction of the output
open area by less than 10% would be
ineffective in producing a significant
reduction in noise factor. The maximum
reduction in output open area must be less
than 100%, which would completely close off
the channels, as some opening must remain to
allow the electrons to escape the MCP. A
reduction in the range from about 10% to
about 85% has resulted in a useful compromise
between the two extremes described above. In
general, a reduction at the higher end of
this range is most effective in carrying out
this invention [col. 7, lines 6-19].
Appellant further points out that (Brief, p.13):
A reading of Aebi et al establishes that the
purpose of this reference is directly
opposite to the purpose of the claimed
subject matter. For example, Col. 8, lines
32-37 state: "an output electrode 126,
preferably aluminum, is deposited on the
output surface of the microchannel plate 116
to substantially close off the open area of
the channels 128 formed by the channel walls
130"; and lines 54-59 of Col. 8 state that
"the output channel area of the MCP is
reduced by at least 10% and preferably
reduced by substantially 75 to 85 percent by
applying a much thicker metalization layer"
(underlining added).
In contrast, appellant's claimed invention comprises a layer
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007