Appeal No. 97-1932
Application 08/028,047
to be suggested for any type of display using a cathode and an
anode such as taught by Oess. Therefore, we are not persuaded
by appellant that the examiner’s proposed combination would
not work.
Appellant argues that the combination proposed by the
examiner comes only from a hindsight reconstruction of the
invention [brief, page 11]. We do not agree. The examiner
cites Kishino for the sole purpose of suggesting a plurality
of cathode structures for each picture element. Kishino
clearly suggests that each picture element of a display can
have a variable number of emitters [see column 4, lines 65-
68]. Therefore, the theory used by the examiner is clearly
suggested by the applied references and is not based only on
hindsight.
Appellant argues that the rejection is wrong as a
matter of fact because Figure 3 of Oess does not teach a
monolithic structure as claimed [brief, page 12]. Figure 3 is
described as an exploded view of a portion of Figure 2 [column
2]. Oess discloses that “[a]s shown in FIG. 2, the structure
is monolithic” [column 5, line 13]. Therefore, Figure 3 is
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007