Ex parte GARTNER et al. - Page 2




          Appeal No. 1998-1869                                                        
          Application 08/688,423                                                      




          The disclosed invention pertains to a scandate                              
          dispenser cathode for use in an electric discharge tube.  The               
          invention is particularly related to a coating having an                    
          emissive surface on the cathode body.  The coating is a three               
          layer coating with each of the layers having a specific                     
          composition.                                                                
          Representative claim 1 is reproduced as follows:                            
               1. An electric discharge tube having a scandate                        
          dispenser cathode, which is composed of a cathode body and a                
          coating having an emissive surface, said cathode body                       
          comprising a matrix material of at least one refractory metal               
          or at least one refractory alloy and a barium compound which                
          is in contact with the matrix material to supply barium to the              
          emissive surface by means of a chemical reaction with said                  
          matrix material, said coating containing a multilayer which                 
          includes a bottom layer of tungsten or a tungsten alloy, an                 
          intermediate layer of rhenium or a rhenium alloy and a top                  
          layer of scandium oxide, a mixture of scandium oxide and rare-              
          earth metal oxides, a scandate or a scandium alloy.                         
          The examiner relies on the following reference:                             
          Watanabe et al. (Watanabe)       4,855,637       Aug. 8, 1989               
          Claims 1 and 2 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)                      
          as being anticipated by the disclosure of Watanabe.  Claim 4                
          stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable                 
          over the teachings of Watanabe.                                             

                                         -2-                                          





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007