Appeal No. 1997-2291
Application No. 08/422,667
All of the rejections are reversed.
Turning first to the rejection under the first paragraph
of 35 U.S.C. § 112, the examiner states (Answer, page 5) that
“[t]here is not one range of energies where the secondary
emission coefficient is equal to one.” Appellants argue
(Brief, page 4) that “[f]igure 3 clearly shows a secondary
emission coefficient that is one or more at every point over
the range of electron energies from E to E .” This rejectionI II
is reversed because we agree with appellants’ argument that
Figure 3 of the drawing clearly shows that the endpoints of
the range are equal to “1" and all points between the two
endpoints are “equal to at least one” as claimed.
In the obviousness rejection involving the references to
Van Gorkum and Chang, the examiner is of the opinion that Van
Gorkum discloses all of the claimed structure except for a
second selection plate, and that Chang discloses “a selection
plate
26 termed as a ‘modulating structure’” which has the
“advantageous property modulating the level of the picture
element.” The examiner is of the opinion (Answer, page 6)
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007