Appeal No. 95-0647
Application No. 08/026,246
We agree with the examiner’s conclusions set forth in
paragraphs 9 and 10. The conclusion in paragraph 11 that
“[i]t would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in
the art to use the glass of Daiku for the CRT’s of Hodges in
order to enhance the contrast” is perfectly reasonable. With
respect to the examiner’s opinion in paragraph 11 that “there
is at least one substance in the glass of Hodges or Daiku that
will attenuate all the visible wavelengths by the same
amount,” we note that the examiner’s knowledge of such
“substance” has not been shared with either the appellants or
the Board. Our review of the teachings of both Hodges and
Daiku does not reveal such a “substance.”
The Examiner’s opinion in paragraph 12 that “in the
process of making the glass, all of the substances to make the
glass would be uniformly distributed, otherwise the glass
could have weak areas” lacks evidential support.
In view of the foregoing, we agree with the appellants
(Brief, page 6) that “there is no teaching or suggestion in
the Hodges patent of providing the uniform distribution in the
display window of a means for attenuating all the wavelengths
of radiation produced by a CRT by about the same amount, an
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007