Appeal No. 96-2276
Application 08/128,622
generating electron beams, a display screen for receiving
said electron beams, a shadow mask disposed between said
electron gun and said display screen, and a four-sided
supporting frame for holding said shadow mask, the
improvement comprising means associated with said
supporting frame for preventing deformations of said
shadow mask during operation of the display tube.
Opinion
We reverse the rejection of claims 14-22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph. We reverse the rejection of claim 13
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Ragland. We
further reverse the rejection of claims 14-17, 21, 23 and 24
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ragland and
claims 18-20 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Ragland in view of Morrell.
The Indefiniteness Rejection
The examiner rejected claims 14-22 as failing to
particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter
which appellant regards as the invention. The examiner states
that claim 14 is indefinite as “it is unclear as to how the
support frame for the shadow mask can function to prevent
inherent deformations of the shadow mask ... without deforming
the shadow mask.” (Answer, pg. 3).
We disagree with the examiner that the claims, when
properly interpreted, must prevent inherent deformations of
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007