Appeal No. 1999-2590
Application 08/618,120
Appellants first point out that Appellants’ admitted
prior art describes the disadvantages associated with the
prior art and Appellants’ claims clearly distinguish over this
prior art. Brief at page 4. Next, Appellants summarize that
the Hobbins reference describes the use of ultrasonic welding
to attach a wire screen over an entire display, the display
being a CRT video display unit. Brief at page 4. Finally,
Appellants assert that the Shetty reference is non-analogous
art but acknowledge its purpose for illustrating the “alleged
interchangeability of various welding methods.” Brief at page
5, lines 1-3. Appellants conclude that the prior art can
disclose no more than the use of a wire screen over an entire
LED display, the use of a wire screen over an entire CRT
display, and the interchangeability of various welding methods
in a non-analogous field of art. Brief at page 5.
In response, the Examiner summarizes that Hobbins teaches
to weld a woven wire screen, or mesh, having a matrix of small
openings directly to the surface of a display device to
provide an EMI shielded face plate. Examiner’s Answer at page
4. Therefore, the Examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious to use one piece or a plurality of small pieces of
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007