Appeal No. 2001-1982
Application 08/892,716
Boudreau does not interfere with any mating surface, much less
with the CRT, there is no motivation for recessing the gate
flashing. However, even if the gate flashing were recessed just
because it could be recessed in view of Arai, Boudreau would
still not meet the limitation of "a gate landing formed on a CRT
seating surface of said front case." The same limitation is
found in slightly different words in all of the independent
claims. Accordingly, we conclude that the examiner has failed to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness and the rejection of
claims 1-14 is reversed.
NEW GROUND OF REJECTION UNDER 37 CFR § 1.196(b)
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over appellant's admitted prior art (APA) and Arai.
The APA is shown in figures 1-3 and described in the
specification at page 1, line 17, to page 2, line 4, and page 3,
line 11, to page 4, line 15.2 The APA discloses that a housing
for a cathode ray tube (CRT) made by injection molding often
contains flash protrusions on the surface. If these gate flash
protrusions protrude from a seating surface where a CRT is
2 As discussed at the oral hearing, we interpret the
specification as admitting that the subject matter of figures 1,
2A, and 2B is prior art to appellant. Counsel for appellant
stated that he will inquire of appellant whether this is actually
prior art and, if not, will make the appropriate clarification.
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007