Appeal No. 1996-3052
Application 08/064,639
On page 3 of the answer, the Examiner argues that it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time the invention was made to form the two portions E1
and E as shown in figures 16A and 16B as a one piece struc-
2
ture since it has been held that forming in one piece an
article that has formerly been formed in two pieces and put
together involves only routine skill in the art. On page 4 of
the answer, the Examiner further argues that the steps having
inclined walls between the two portions as recited in Appel-
lants' claim 1 is not a limita- tion because it is not neces-
sary. The Examiner argues that such a limitation would be a
matter of design alternative.
Appellants argue in the reply brief that the Exam-
iner has failed to evaluate all the limitations recited in
Appellants' claims. Appellants point out that claim 1 recites
[a] cathode-ray tube which has an electron
gun that includes a one piece electrode
plate, wherein said one piece electrode
plate has a plurality of beam passage holes
and bead supports, a portion having said
beam passage holes and a portion having
said bead supports are formed as a one
piece structure, said two portions have
different thicknesses and steps having
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007