Appeal No. 1998-0380
Application No. 08/518,062
electrodes at the location of the apertures provided therein
are spaced apart substantially at a distance which is limited
by electrostatic breakdown.
As we see it, the content of claim 1 is anticipated by
the Hughes teaching. More specifically, we share the
examiner’s point of view that the above referenced language of
claim 1 addresses an inherent feature of the overall in-line
electron gun teaching of Hughes (Fig. 3). This panel of the
board is of the opinion that the examiner has given a
technically sound explanation (answer, page 4) to support an
inherency conclusion by pointing out that the distances
between the electrodes 29, 31 of Hughes are inherently limited
by the electrostatic breakdown since if they were spaced at a
distance less than the distance of electrostatic breakdown the
electrodes would arc and the electron gun would fail to
operate.
We also conclude that the subject matter of claim 5/1 is
anticipated by Hughes. It is quite apparent to us that
electrode 31 of Hughes is comprised of two parts, as broadly
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007