Appeal No. 1999-2590
Application 08/618,120
Turning to Hobbins, we find that Hobbins supports the
teaching of a wire screen attached across the surface of a
cathode ray tube (CRT) and we reference these specific cites
from Hobbins. Hobbins at column 5, lines 5-7, provides:
A conductive screen 22 is provided which has a larger
extent than the viewing area of cathode ray tube 16.
Conductive screen 22 is then placed firmly and tautly
over the viewing surface of the cathode ray tube 16.
Hobbins, at column 5, lines 18-21, provides:
In one embodiment of this invention, conductive adhesive
or glue is applied to that portion of conductive screen
22 which is contained within [the] groove.
Finally, Hobbins, column 3, lines 26-32, states:
In the preferred embodiment, conductive screen 22 is a
woven wire mesh which readily allows passage of the image
projected onto the face 16A of CRT 16 therethrough. In
the most preferred embodiment, conductive screen 22 is a
woven wire mesh comprising a matrix of small openings
having a diameter of approximately one thousandth of
inch.
But, we do not find that Hobbins teaches an LED array.
Hobbins teaches the use of a video display and specifically, a
CRT unit. Even if we were to analogize the CRT to an LED
array, Hobbins teaches only one CRT, and Appellants’ claim
language plainly requires “a plurality of module block LED
arrays.” We do not find that Hobbins teaches or otherwise
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007