Appeal No. 2001-0821
Application 08/962,567
1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147
(CCPA 1976). Only those arguments actually made by appellant
have been considered in this decision. Arguments which appellant
could have made but chose not to make in the brief have not been
considered and are deemed to be waived by appellant [see 37 CFR
§ 1.192(a)].
With respect to independent claim 1, the examiner cites
Thompson-Russell for the teachings discussed above. Hirabayashi
is cited as teaching a color cathode ray tube in which the
vertical pitch of the slots is between 0.2mm and 0.5mm as defined
from the centers of the slots. The examiner finds that it would
have been obvious to the artisan to reduce the vertical pitch in
Thompson-Russell to be between 0.31mm to 0.42mm as taught by
Hirabayashi [answer, page 4].
With respect to claim 1, appellant argues that the values
disclosed by Hirabayashi relate to the horizontal pitch of mask
holes and not to the vertical pitch as claimed. Appellant also
argues that there is no disclosure of a relevant vertical pitch
in Hirabayashi and that the drawings cannot be presumed to be
drawn to scale. Finally, appellant argues that the examiner is
improperly relying on per se rules of obviousness with respect to
the dimensions recited in the claims [brief, pages 6-11].
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007