Appeal No. 1998-0888
Application 08/314,036
emitter plates. While the Examiner has invented reasons why
it would have been obvious to provide a single anode (to
maintain a continuous pixel pitch and to provide a single
vacuum envelope), there is no factual support for these
reasons in the references, which show combining complete small
displays. The only motivation in the record before us for
providing a single anode is found in Appellants' disclosure.
This is hindsight. Although we find it hard to believe that
using a common faceplate (not necessarily an anode for a FED)
over a mosaic of display elements (not necessarily emitters
for a FED) to provide a larger display was not known in the
display art, there is no evidence of this in the record before
us. Thus, we conclude that the Examiner has failed to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness. The rejection of
claim 9 is reversed.
CONCLUSION
The rejections of claims 1-6 and 9 are reversed.
REVERSED
- 10 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007