Appeal No. 1998-1060
Application No. 08/433,664
1239 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citing W. L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v.
Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1548, 220 USPQ 303, 309 (Fed.
Cir. 1983), cert. denied,
469 U.S. 851 (1984)).
The Examiner reasons that APA and Kojima teach the
claimed method of manufacturing a cathode ray tube having a
filtering layer with silicon dioxide and a dye but fail to
teach incorporating a metal oxide in the coating composition
of the filter layer. Kawamura teaches a cathode ray tube
having a layer on the face plate comprising of a dye, an
electroconductive metal oxide and silica gel (answer-page 5).
The Examiner states:
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one
skilled in the art at the time the invention was
made to have incorporated a metal oxide as evidenced
by Kawamura et al. (5,291,097) in either Applicant’s
admitted state of the art (specification, pg. 1,
line 20-pg. 2, line 2) or Kojima (EP-517611)
filtering layer because one skilled in the art would
want to obtain the benefits associated with the
metal oxide’s use, i.e. effective in removing the
electricity generated on the panel by static
induction (col. 1, lines 5-10). [Answer-pages 5 and
6.]
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007