Appeal No. 1996-3052
Application 08/064,639
inclined and continuous walls between the two portions. We
fail to find that there is any suggestion in the admitted
prior art to make the modification as proposed by the Exam-
iner. Furthermore, we note that the Examiner cannot ignore
limitations that are recited in Appellants' claims without
considering the totality of the Appellants' disclosure. In
particular, we note that the Appellants have disclosed on page
6 of the specification that there is a reason for the differ-
ence of thickness and the
inclined and continuous walls. In particular, Appellants
disclose that the thickness of the two portions are different
and the steps are formed to reduce the gap between the G2
electrode and the G3 electrode in order to improve the focus-
ing performance without deteriorating the breakdown voltage
characteristics.
We have not sustained the rejection of claims 1, 3
and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Accordingly, the Examiner's
decision is reversed.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007