Ex Parte Derraa

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 14, 2008

10420138 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 14, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte AMMAR DERRAA
____________

Appeal 2008-5564
Application 10/420,138
Technology Center 2800
____________

Decided: November 14, 2008
____________

Before KENNETH W. HAIRSTON, JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO
and MARC S. HOFF, Administrative Patent Judges.
HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 21 to 29. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We will sustain the rejection.
Appellant has invented a field emission array that comprises an array
of resistors with at least one laterally extending conductive element in
substantial contact with a lateral side of a resistor, and at least one emitter tip
Appeal 2008-5564
Application 10/420,138

2
located at least partially over each resistor (Figs. 1 and 11; Spec. 6, 8, 12,
and 13).
Claim 21 is the only independent claim on appeal, and it reads as
follows:
21. A field emission array, comprising:
a plurality of resistors arranged in an array;
at least one laterally extending conductive element including at
least one surface in substantial contact with a lateral side of a resistor
of the plurality of resistors; and
at least one emitter tip located at least partially over each resistor
of the plurality of resistors.
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Jones US 5,475,280 Dec. 12, 1995
The Examiner rejected claims 21 to 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
based upon the teachings of Jones.

ISSUE
Appellant contends inter alia that the conductive coatings applied to
the columns 12 in Jones do not extend laterally as set forth in claim 21 on
appeal (Supp. App. Br. 7 and 8; Reply Br. 2). Thus, the issue before us is
does Jones describe laterally extending conductive elements in substantial
contact with a lateral side of a resistor in an array of resistors in a field
emission array?
Appeal 2008-5564
Application 10/420,138

3
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. As indicated supra, Appellant describes and claims a laterally
extending conductive element on a lateral side of a resistor in an array of
resistors in a field emission array.
2. Jones describes a field emission device that comprises a plurality of
resistors 26, and an emitter tip 15 located at least partially over each resistor
(Fig. 1; col. 5, ll. 1 to 12).
3. Jones describes a conductive coating applied to the walls 13 of each
resistor (col. 6, ll. 42 to 45; col. 8, ll. 32 to 42).
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Anticipation is established when a single prior art reference discloses
expressly or under the principles of inherency each and every limitation of
the claimed invention. Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342,
1347 (Fed. Cir. 1999); In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79 (Fed. Cir.
1994).

ANALYSIS
With regard to the Appellant’s argument that the conductive coating
applied to the walls 13 in Jones does not extend laterally from the walls 13,
we agree with the Examiner’s reasoning that the coated metal has a lateral
extent “for at least the width of the resistor” (Ans. 4), and that the
conductive coating “has at least one surface that includes a dimension
greater than zero where that dimension is in a direction that can be
considered lateral” (Ans. 5). Thus, our findings of fact 1 and 2 clearly
Appeal 2008-5564
Application 10/420,138

4
demonstrate that Jones describes all of the field emission array structure set
forth in claims 21 and 22.
Turning to claims 23 and 24, the conductive coating in Jones is
oriented “nonparallel” as well as “substantially perpendicular” to the plane
of the field emission array since it is located on the walls 13 of each resistor
(Supp. App. Br. 8).
Turning lastly to claim 25, if the conductive coating is applied to all
sides of the resistors in Jones, then each resistor will have “two conductive
elements laterally adjacent opposite sides of each resistor” (Supp. App. Br.
8).
Appellant has not presented any patentability arguments for claims 26
to 29 apart from the patentability arguments presented for claim 21.
In summary, we agree with the Examiner that the anticipation
rejection is proper because Jones describes all of the field emission array
structure set forth in claims 21 to 29 on appeal.

CONCLUSION OF LAW
Anticipation has been established by the Examiner because Jones does
disclose each and every limitation of the claimed invention set forth in
claims 21 to 29.

ORDER
The anticipation rejection of claims 21 to 29 is affirmed.

Appeal 2008-5564
Application 10/420,138

5
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

KIS

TRASK BRITT
P. O. BOX 2550
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84110