Appeal No. 1999-0392 Page 3
Application No. 08/548,759
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's answer
(Paper No. 15, mailed Sep. 3, 1998) for the examiner's reasoning in support of the rejections,
and to appellants’ brief (Paper No. 13, filed Jun. 29, 1998) and reply brief (Paper No. 16, filed
Nov. 3, 1998) for the appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the respective
positions articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we
make the determinations which follow.
Appellants argue in the summary of the invention section in the brief at page 7 that the
“invention provides a light scattering reflection flim on the internal surface of the faceplate of
the color cathode-ray tube, which light scattering film scatteringly reflects external light.”
Appellants argue that the examiner’s position with respect to the combination of teachings
is based upon hindsight. (See brief at page 9.) We agree with appellants. The examiner
admits that Nishimura does not disclose a CRT having a light scattering film having metal
particles in the claimed range, but the examiner relies on the teachings of Kawamura to teach
the particle size. The examiner acknowledges that
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007