Appeal No. 1997-2291
Application No. 08/422,667
We agree with the entirety of appellants’ arguments. To
take such disparate teachings, and arrive at the claimed
invention (e.g., the duct with an inner surface formed from an
insulating material of a specific secondary emission
coefficient) would take a healthy dose of impermissible
hindsight and creativity to change the desired operation of
Morimoto. Accordingly, the obviousness rejection of claims 13
through 15, 17 through 24, 26 through 37 and 39 through 45 is
reversed.
Turning lastly to the obviousness rejection of claims 13
through 15, 28 through 30, 33 and 43 through 45 based upon the
teachings of Freeman, Knapp ‘108 and Knapp ‘079, the examiner
states (Answer, page 12) that Freeman teaches all of the
claimed invention except for “a material that has a secondary
emission coefficient of one for a given range of electron
energies,” and “a spacer with a plurality of apertures between
the transport duct and the luminescent screen.”
Notwithstanding the secondary electron emissive material
teachings of Knapp ‘079, and the spacer teachings of Knapp
‘108, the examiner has again failed to present a plausible
reason for modifying the teachings of the primary reference
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007