Appeal No. 2002-0587 Page 6
Application No. 08/922,300
1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re
Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976).
The examiner asserts (answer, page 4) that appellant's
admitted prior art does not disclose "power interruption delay
charging means for gradually lowering said input voltage to said
H/V processor constant voltage circuit when power supplied to
said display device is interrupted2." To overcome this
deficiency in the admitted prior art, the examiner turns to
Martin for a teaching of “a protection circuit for a display
device which ensures screen protection in case of sudden failures
or malfunctions of circuits to the tube (see col. 1 lines 35-39),
which ensures that the screen will not be damaged by a strong
beam current (see col. 1 lines 5-8)” (answer, page 10-11). The
examiner asserts (answer, page 5) that the diode capacitor
network makes the voltage at the control grid 14 drop slowly even
though its bias voltage -V1 is removed, and that it would have
been obvious to utilize Martin's protection circuit with
appellant's admitted prior art because it would protect the CRT
display in case of sudden failure or malfunction of circuits to
the tube.
2 Appellant admits (brief, page 5) that the admitted prior art teaches
all that is claimed except for this feature of the invention.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007