Appeal No. 1997-2291
Application No. 08/422,667
electron energies in a substantial length of the cavity of the
duct.” The examiner cites Knapp ‘079 (Answer, page 8) because
“it is well known to form the secondary electron emissive
material from substances like ‘KAPTON’ and with a coating like
MgO, so as to form a[n] electrically insulative layer,” and
cites the Lyamikschev publication because it purportedly
teaches that the use of such a material would allow for the
use of a smaller electron gun.
Appellants argue (Brief, page 10) that:
The Examiner states that the Russian-language
document to Ljamitscher [sic, Lyamikschev] teaches
the use of electron multipliers so as to utilize a
smaller electron gun. Even if this is true, it does
not suggest why or how the teachings of Morimoto,
Knapp ‘079 and Ljamitscher [sic, Lyamikschev] could
or should be combined to produce applicants’
invention. Note that applicants’ invention does not
use an electron gun (which produces a focused and
accelerated high-energy beam of electrons). Rather,
it produces and uses unfocused, relatively low-
energy secondary electrons which propagate through a
duct. The entire mode of operation of the claimed
display is dissimilar from that of Morimoto.
Similarly, it is not clear how or why the likewise
dissimilar modes of operation of the Morimoto
(focused electron beam display) and Ljamitscher
[sic, Lyamikschev] (secondary emission display)
could or should be combined to produce anything
suggestive of applicants[’] claimed display device.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007