Appeal No. 2001-0821
Application 08/962,567
The examiner responds that the horizontal and vertical
pitches in Hirabayashi are related as shown in Figure 1b [answer,
pages 7-8]. Appellant responds by essentially repeating the
arguments made in the main brief [reply brief].
We will not sustain this rejection of independent claim 1
or of any of the claims which depend therefrom. The deficiencies
of Thompson-Russell have been discussed above. Additionally, we
agree with appellant that the values of pitch described in
Hirabayashi relate to dimensions in the horizontal direction and
not to the vertical direction as claimed. We also agree with
appellant that there is no clear disclosure in Hirabayashi that
the pitch in the vertical direction is directly related to the
pitch in the horizontal direction regardless of the arrangement
of the slots as shown in Figure 1b. We also note, however, that
the description in Hirabayashi appears to be directed to the use
of round-hole type mask holes. Note that Hirabayashi states that
for high-resolution color display tubes the round-hole type of
mask hole is used [translation, page 7]. Thus, the values in
Hirabayashi would describe pitch values for round holes and not
for vertically elongated slots as claimed. Therefore, the values
of vertical pitch recited in independent claim 1 are still not
taught by the combination of Thompson-Russell and Hirabayashi.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007