Appeal No. 97-2457 Page 6
Application No. 08/366,376
a prima facie case, his obviousness rejection is improper and
will be overturned. In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28
USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993). With this as background,
we analyze the prior art applied by the examiner in rejecting
the claims on appeal.
Regarding claim 1, the independent claim, the examiner
observes that Spindt discloses a plurality of substrates 14,
arranged side-by-side, with electron emitters 15 on a surface
thereof. (Examiner’s Answer at 3.) In the examiner’s view,
Kuroda teaches employing a first substrate 21 as a base or
foundation for a second substrate 36. (Id. at 4.) Van der
Wilk is cited for teaching deflection electrodes found in
claim 2. (Id.) The examiner concludes that, in view of the
two substrates of Kuroda, it would have been obvious to add a
base substrate below the conductor 6 and substrates 14 of
Spindt “for the purpose of providing a foundation for the
leads and substrate.” (Id.)
The appellants counter that Kuroda does not teach the use
of multiple substrates. (Appeal Brief at 12-14.) They also
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007