Appeal No. 1998-0923
Application No. 08/514,718
30, 1997), suggests a possible alternative interpretation of
the Figure 3 illustration in Morimoto in which the structure
upon which the cathodes 10 are supported could be considered
as a lead frame. It is our view, however, that even assuming,
arguendo, that this assertion has merit, Morimoto would then
lack any disclosure of the separately claimed “support
members” upon which Appellants’ claimed cathode substrate is
horizontally placed.
Accordingly, since all of the claim limitations are not
taught or suggested by the applied prior art, it is our
opinion that the Examiner has not established a prima facie
case of obviousness with respect to appealed independent claim
1. Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. §
103 rejection of independent claim 1, nor of claims 2, 4, and
6-10 dependent thereon.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007