Appeal No. 2001-1982
Application 08/892,716
references. If the same argument had been presented in the
briefs, it is likely that we would not have seen this appeal.
While we are reluctant to consider new arguments made for the
first time at the oral hearing, we believe that the examiner's
rejection is defective and could not withstand judicial review.
The examiner has found an excellent secondary reference in
Arai to show recessing the gate landing and gate flash protrusion
below the surface so that the surface can be abutted with a
mating surface by surface contact. The examiner also correctly
points out that Arai teaches that the injection molding
techniques are applicable to CRTs. The error in the rejection is
that Boudreau does not teach "a gate landing formed on a CRT
seating surface of said front case," as recited in claim 1. The
molded bezel 20 in Boudreau has "gate landings" at the location
of the sprue holes 62, 64 in figure 5; however, these locations
are not on a "CRT seating surface" as claimed. The CRT does not
mate with the molded bezel at these locations. Assuming that the
molded assembly of the CRT 12 and the molded bezel 20 together
was considered a CRT, and that the rear housing 14 could be
termed a "front case," the housing 14 does not seat on the
surface having the gate landings. The housing 14 has an extended
portion 34 which fits into a circumferential indentation 28 on
bezel 20 (figure 4) which is formed by mold inserts 44, 46
(figure 5). Because the gate flash at the sprue holes 62, 64 in
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007