Appeal No. 95-2751
Application No. 07/885,107
Turning now to the rejection of claims 2 through 4 under
35 U.S.C. 103, the examiner contends that since Dougherty
discloses a CRT having a flat face plate with a tensed shadow
mask mounted on it, and a funnel with areas of thinner
portions where the indexing elements are located, it would
have been obvious, “as a matter of choice in design” [answer-
page 3] to have Pfleeger accept the faceplate of Dougherty.
We agree with appellant that the indexing elements of
Dougherty identified by the examiner are not located in the
corners and would have no substantial effect on the stress
during thermal processing, which is the focus of the instant
invention. Further, since the examiner relies, in this
rejection, on the mischaracterization of the Pfleeger
reference, as noted supra with regard to the rejection under
35 U.S.C. 102(b), the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is
tainted.
The examiner’s response [answer-page 5] is to attack the
criticality of having the thinner areas only in the corners.
The examiner then appears to accept that the thinner areas in
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007