Appeal No. 1998-0380
Application No. 08/518,062
The anticipation rejection
We affirm the anticipation rejection of claims 1, 5/1,
and 6/1, but reverse the anticipation rejection of claims 2,
5/2, and 6/2.
Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is established only
when a single prior art reference discloses, either expressly
or under principles of inherency, each and every element of a
claimed invention. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477,
44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d
1475, 1478-79, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re
Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1657 (Fed. Cir.
1990); and RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Sys., Inc., 730
F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Claim 1 is drawn to a cathode ray tube comprising, inter
alia, one of first and second prefocusing electrodes
protruding toward the other in such a way that the distance
between the electrodes at the location of apertures therein is
smaller than at the location of the respective securing means
thereof, and in that the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007