Appeal No. 2003-1249
Application 09/386,972
the cathode (answer, pages 3-4). The cathode cleaning time, the
examiner argues, obviously varies based upon the nature of the
display device (answer, page 4). The examiner argues, without
providing evidentiary support, that a flat panel display requires
more cleaning time than a CRT because, unlike a CRT, its cathodes
are energized only intermittently (answer, pages 4-5).
As evidence that a flat panel display requires a longer
cleaning time than a CRT the examiner relies upon Itoh and
Watkins (answer, pages 5-6). Although Itoh repeats, several
times, a step of emitting electrons from the cathode for a few or
several minutes, he does this in a procedure in which reducing
gas, instead of Konuma’s getter, is used for cleaning. Watkins
uses an exemplified cleaning time of 1-2 hours, but does not use
Konuma’s getter or electron emission from the cathode. The
examiner has not provided evidence that the cleaning times of
Itoh and Watkins are longer than Konuma’s disclosed CRT cleaning
time due to a difference in the devices cleaned rather than being
due to differences in the cleaning procedures. The examiner has
provided only speculation to that effect, and such speculation is
not a sufficient basis for a prima facie case of obviousness.
See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017, 154 USPQ 173, 178 (CCPA
1967), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 1057 (1968); In re Sporck, 301 F.2d
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007