Ex parte DONOFRIO et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 20, 1998

08026246 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 20, 1998)

Application for patent filed March 4, 1993. According1
to applicants, the application is a continuation of
Application 07/459,915, filed January 2, 1990, now abandoned.
1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
(1) was not written for publication in a law journal and
(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 30
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte ROBERT L. DONOFRIO
AND ANDRE VADER VOORT
_____________
Appeal No. 95-0647
Application 08/026,2461
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before HAIRSTON, KRASS, and FLEMING, Administrative Patent
Judges.
HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
Appeal No. 95-0647
Application No. 08/026,246
We assume that the rejection under the second paragraph2
of 35 U.S.C. § 112 was likewise overcome by the amendment
because the indefiniteness rejection was not repeated in the
Answer.
2
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1,
2, 5, 8 through 11 and 13. In an Amendment After Final (paper
number 20), claims 1 and 8 were amended. As indicated in the
Advisory Action (paper number 21), the amendment had the
effect of overcoming the rejection under the first paragraph
of 35 U.S.C. § 112.2
The disclosed invention relates to a monochrome cathode
ray tube (CRT) for a projection television.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention, and it
reads as follows:
1. A monochrome cathode ray tube for projection
television comprising in an evacuated envelope a display
screen on a convexly curved inner surface of a display window
in the wall of the envelope, the display screen comprising a
layer of a luminescent material, characterized in that means
for attenuating at least the wavelengths of radiation
corresponding to the luminescent output of the tube area
uniformly distributed in the display window so as to attenuate
all wave lengths of said radiation by about the same amount,
said amount being such as to result in a transmission of the
display window in the range of about 70 to 90 percent thereby
Appeal No. 95-0647
Application No. 08/026,246
3
to improve the luminance uniformity of the display.
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Maple 4,132,919 Jan.
2, 1979
Daiku 4,376,829 Mar.
15, 1983
Hodges 4,755,868 July
5, 1988
Claims 1, 5, 8, 10 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Hodges in view of Daiku.
Claims 2, 9 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Hodges in view of Daiku and Maple.
Reference is made to the final rejection, the briefs and
the answer for the respective positions of the appellants and
the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and we will reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 1, 2,
5, 8 through 11 and 13.
As indicated supra, this application is a continuation of
Application 07/459,915, filed January 2, 1990. In Appeal
Number 93-0598 in the parent application, the Board affirmed
Appeal No. 95-0647
Application No. 08/026,246
4
the prior art rejections of the claims based upon the
teachings and suggestions found in Hodges. According to the
Board (Opinion, page 6), “[t]he glass of Hodges [sic, Hodges’]
CRT corresponds to the ‘means for attenuating’ recited in
claim 1,” and the “[t]he
Appeal No. 95-0647
Application No. 08/026,246
5
glass of the CRTs of Hodges necessarily and inherently meets
the attenuation limitations of claim 1."
Claim 1 on appeal differs from claim 1 in the parent
application by the addition of the phrase “so as to attenuate
all wave lengths of said radiation by about the same amount,
said amount being such as to result in a transmission of the
display window in the range of about 70 to 90 percent” before
the “thereby” clause. The examiner is of the opinion (Final
Rejection, page 4) that:
9. Hodges discloses everything as applicants have
claimed except for the attenuating means.
10. Daiku discloses a glass composition for a
monochromatic CRT which attenuated particular
wavelengths to enhance contrast.
11. It would have been obvious to one having
ordinary skill in the art to use the glass of Daiku
for the CRT’s of Hodges in order to enhance the
contrast. . . . It is the Examiner’s opinion that
there is at least one substance in the glass of
Hodges or Daiku that will attenuate all the visible
wavelengths by the same amount.
12. While applicants may argue that there is no
showing of uniform distribution on the display
window of a substance for attenuating all
wavelengths of visible radiation, it is the
Examiner’s opinion that in the process of making the
glass, all of the substances to make the glass would
be uniformly distributed, otherwise the glass could
have weak areas.
Appeal No. 95-0647
Application No. 08/026,246
6
Appeal No. 95-0647
Application No. 08/026,246
7
We agree with the examiner’s conclusions set forth in
paragraphs 9 and 10. The conclusion in paragraph 11 that
“[i]t would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in
the art to use the glass of Daiku for the CRT’s of Hodges in
order to enhance the contrast” is perfectly reasonable. With
respect to the examiner’s opinion in paragraph 11 that “there
is at least one substance in the glass of Hodges or Daiku that
will attenuate all the visible wavelengths by the same
amount,” we note that the examiner’s knowledge of such
“substance” has not been shared with either the appellants or
the Board. Our review of the teachings of both Hodges and
Daiku does not reveal such a “substance.”
The Examiner’s opinion in paragraph 12 that “in the
process of making the glass, all of the substances to make the
glass would be uniformly distributed, otherwise the glass
could have weak areas” lacks evidential support.
In view of the foregoing, we agree with the appellants
(Brief, page 6) that “there is no teaching or suggestion in
the Hodges patent of providing the uniform distribution in the
display window of a means for attenuating all the wavelengths
of radiation produced by a CRT by about the same amount, an
Appeal No. 95-0647
Application No. 08/026,246
8
amount resulting in the transmission of the display window at
a range of 70 to 90%,” and “[t]he Daiku patent is not
considered to fill in the essential gaps of the teaching of
the Hodges patent.” The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims
1, 5, 8, 10 and 13 is reversed.
The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 2, 9 and 11 is
reversed because Maple does not cure the noted shortcomings in
the teachings of Hodges and Daiku.
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1, 2, 5, 8
through 11 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
ERROL A. KRASS ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
MICHAEL R. FLEMING )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 95-0647
Application No. 08/026,246
9
Appeal No. 95-0647
Application No. 08/026,246
10
CORPORATE PATENT COUNSEL
U.S. PHILIPS CORPORATION
Patent Department
580 White Plains Road
Tarrytown, NY 10591