Ex Parte Aibara

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 17, 2003

08962567 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 17, 2003)

1
The opinion in support of the decision being entered
today was not written for publication and is
not binding precedent of the Board
Paper No. 28
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte NOBUMITSU AIBARA
______________
Appeal No. 2001-0821
Application 08/962,567
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before HAIRSTON, KRASS, and JERRY SMITH, Administrative Patent
Judges.
JERRY SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from
the examiner’s rejection of claims 1-11 and 14-25, which
constitute all the claims remaining in the application.
The disclosed invention pertains to a shadow-mask type
color cathode ray tube. More particularly, the invention relates
to the manner in which slots are arranged on the shadow mask
which is fixed apart from the face panel of the cathode ray tube.
Representative claim 1 is reproduced as follows:
Appeal No. 2001-0821
Application 08/962,567
2
1. A shadow-mask type color cathode-ray tube comprising:
a face panel on which an image is displayed;
a funnel connected to said face panel, said funnel and said
face panel forming a vacuum container;
electron guns for producing electron beams for red, green
and blue colors, said guns being horizontally arranged in line;
a deflection yoke provided around said funnel, said yoke
deflecting said electron beams;
a phosphor screen formed on an inner surface of said face
panel in said container;
said screen having stripes of phosphor materials for red,
green and blue colors, said stripes being horizontally arranged
in said screen;
a shadow mask fixed apart from said face panel and opposed
to said phosphor screen in said container;
said shadow mask having slots which selectively allow said
electron beams to arrive at said phosphor screen through said
mask, each of said slots having a vetically elongated shape; said
electron beams being scanned perpendicular to said slots;
said slots being arranged horizontally at a fixed horizontal
pitch with respect to each other;
said slots being arranged vertically at a fixed vertical
pitch with respect to each other;
wherein at least two vertically adjacent ones of said slots
each have a bridge area therebetween, said bridge area serving as
an electron-beam stopping area;
wherein at least two horizontally adjacent ones of said
slots are vertically shifted a fixed distance relative to each
other, said fixed distance being equal to approximately a half of
said vertical pitch; and
Appeal No. 2001-0821
Application 08/962,567
1 Our understanding of Hirabayashi is based on a
translation provided to the Office by an Office contractor.
A copy of this translation is attached to this decision.
3
wherein said vertical pitch of said slots is set at a value
ranging from 0.2mm to 0.5mm and is defined relative to centers of
said slots.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Thompson-Russell 4,859,901 Aug. 22, 1989
K. Hirabayashi et al. (Hirabayashi), “High-Resolution Color
Display Tube,” National Technical Report, Vol. 25, No. 2, April
1979, pages 251-263.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8 and 11 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by the disclosure of
Thompson-Russell. Claims 1-11 and 14-25 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103. As evidence of obviousness the examiner offers
Thompson-Russell in view of Hirabayashi1.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellant or the
examiner, we make reference to the briefs and the answer for the
respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on
appeal, the rejections advanced by the examiner and the evidence
of anticipation and obviousness relied upon by the examiner as
support for the rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and
Appeal No. 2001-0821
Application 08/962,567
4
taken into consideration, in reaching our decision, the
appellant’s arguments set forth in the briefs along with the
examiner’s rationale in support of the rejections and arguments
in rebuttal set forth in the examiner’s answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before
us, that the evidence relied upon does not support either of the
rejections as formulated by the examiner. Accordingly, we
reverse.
We consider first the rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8
and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by the
disclosure of Thompson-Russell. These claims stand or fall
together as a single group [brief, page 3]. Anticipation is
established only when a single prior art reference discloses,
expressly or under the principles of inherency, each and every
element of a claimed invention as well as disclosing structure
which is capable of performing the recited functional
limitations. RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Systems, Inc.,
730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir.); cert.
dismissed, 468 U.S. 1228 (1984); W.L. Gore and Associates, Inc.
v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1554, 220 USPQ 303, 313 (Fed.
Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
Appeal No. 2001-0821
Application 08/962,567
5
With respect to representative independent claim 1, the
examiner indicates how he finds anticipation [answer, pages 3-4].
Appellant argues that Thompson-Russell does not disclose that
each of the slots has a vertically elongated shape and wherein
the vertical pitch of the slots is set to a value ranging from
0.2mm to 0.5mm and is defined relative to the centers of the
slots as claimed. Appellant notes that the values set forth for
the dimensions of the slots in Thompson-Russell cannot possibly
satisfy the dimensions recited in claim 1 [brief, pages 3-6].
The examiner responds by citing a portion of Thompson-Russell
wherein it is stated that “[t]he pitch between the apertures and
the rows of apertures is, for example, 0.20mm and 0.53 mm,
respectively.” The examiner notes that the claimed range reads
on the range disclosed by Thompson-Russell [answer, pages 5-7].
Appellant responds that the portion of Thompson-Russell relied on
by the examiner relates to a discussion of the pits and not of
the vertical slots as claimed. Appellant also responds that the
examiner has improperly relied on Hirabayashi to support this
anticipation rejection based on Thompson-Russell [reply brief].
We will not sustain this rejection of the examiner. The
portion of the disclosure of Thompson-Russell which is relied on
by the examiner does not support the examiner’s finding of
Appeal No. 2001-0821
Application 08/962,567
6
anticipation. First, we agree with appellant that the portion of
Thompson-Russell relied on relates to the diagonal blind slots 24
and not to the vertical slots 10. The use of the term
“apertures” in the sentence quoted above is a clear error in
terminology and is inconsistent with the remainder of the
disclosure with respect to the apertures 10. Second, the use of
the term “pitch” in the sentence quoted above is clearly not
defined relative to the centers of the slots (blind slots)
because it is inconsistent with the values specifically disclosed
in the reference. The vertical pitch in Thompson-Russell is
clearly designated as being 0.77mm when measured from the centers
of the slots. There is no alternative embodiment disclosed.
Since a vertical pitch of 0.77mm is not within the claimed range
of 0.2mm to 0.5mm, Thompson-Russell does not fully meet the
invention as recited in representative claim 1.
We now consider the rejection of claims 1-11 and 14-25
based on Thompson-Russell and Hirabayashi. In rejecting claims
under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent upon the examiner to
establish a factual basis to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1073, 5 USPQ2d 1596,
1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In so doing, the examiner is expected to
make the factual determinations set forth in Graham v. John Deere
Appeal No. 2001-0821
Application 08/962,567
7
Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966), and to provide a
reason why one having ordinary skill in the pertinent art would
have been led to modify the prior art or to combine prior art
references to arrive at the claimed invention. Such reason must
stem from some teaching, suggestion or implication in the prior
art as a whole or knowledge generally available to one having
ordinary skill in the art. Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley Corp.,
837 F.2d 1044, 1051, 5 USPQ2d 1434, 1438 (Fed. Cir.), cert.
denied, 488 U.S. 825 (1988); Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins &
Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 293, 227 USPQ 657, 664 (Fed.
Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1017 (1986); ACS Hosp. Sys.,
Inc. v. Montefiore Hosp., 732 F.2d 1572, 1577, 221 USPQ 929, 933
(Fed. Cir. 1984). These showings by the examiner are an
essential part of complying with the burden of presenting a prima
facie case of obviousness. Note In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443,
1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). If that burden is
met, the burden then shifts to the applicant to overcome the
prima facie case with argument and/or evidence. Obviousness is
then determined on the basis of the evidence as a whole and the
relative persuasiveness of the arguments. See Id.; In re Hedges,
783 F.2d 1038, 1039, 228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re
Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir.
Appeal No. 2001-0821
Application 08/962,567
8
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].
Appeal No. 2001-0821
Application 08/962,567
9
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.
Appeal No. 2001-0821
Application 08/962,567
10
In summary, we have not sustained either of the
examiner’s rejections of the claims on appeal. Therefore, the
decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1-11 and 14-25 is
reversed.
REVERSED
Kenneth W. Hairston )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
Errol A. Krass ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
Jerry Smith )
Administrative Patent Judge )

JS/cam
Sughrue, Mion, Zinn, MacPeak & Seas
2100 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20037