Appeal No. 2006-0374
Application No. 10/120,511
Neukermans . . . teaches a method of treating an
array of current emitters (col. 3, lines 21-37)
comprising:
a) exposing a native oxide-containing tip of said
at least one (silicon) current emitter to a native
oxide removal process to remove the native oxides
(col. 3, lines 17-20); and
b) exposing the native oxide-free tip of said at
least one current emitter to a nitrogen infusion
process to form a treated current emission surface of
said tip (col. 5, lines 31-51) [Answer, page 6].
With further regard to this reference, the examiner
acknowledges that "Neukermans . . . does not explicitly teach
[, inter alia,] that the emitters are used in a flat display
panel" (Answer, page 6) but concludes that:
[I]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art at the time the invention was made to have
used the method of Neukermans . . . to have produced an
array of field emitter tips for a flat panel display
field emission device because Neukermans . . . teaches
that its method is suitable for producing field
emissive silicon tips, and Cathey . . . teaches that
flat panel displays are a conventional use for an array
of field emissive silicon tips [Answer, pages 6-7].
Although each of the rejections formulated by the examiner
includes numerous other findings of fact and conclusions of law,
we need not discuss these other findings and conclusions in order
to resolve the subject appeal. This is because the examiner's
afore-quoted findings and concomitantly the conclusion of law
based thereon include fatal error. Specifically, the examiner
has erroneously determined that Neukermans' method of treating an
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007