Ex parte Seevinck et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 19, 1999

08408088 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 19, 1999)

Application for patent filed March 21, 1995. According 1
to Appellants, the application is a continuation of Applica-
tion 08/156,144, filed November 22, 1993, 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(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 20
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte EVERT SEEVINCK
and
TJERK G. SPANJER
_____________
Appeal No. 1997-3148
Application 08/408,0881
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before URYNOWICZ, FLEMING and FRAHM, Administrative Patent
Judges.
FLEMING, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal No. 1997-3148
Application 08/408,088
2
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejec-
tion of claims 5 through 8 and 12 through 19, all of the
claims
pending in the present application. Claims 1 through 4 and
9 through 11 have been cancelled.
The Appellants' invention relates to a cathode ray
tube having at least one semiconductor cathode for generating
an electron beam. On page 1 of the specification, Appellants
disclose that problems occur in the manufacturing process of
the cathode ray tube when a conditioning step known as spot-
knocking is done. Spot-knocking is a process in which a
number of grids in the tube acquire a high to very high volt-
age while the substrate and the gate electrodes of the semi-
conductor cathode are grounded. During this spot-knocking
operation, flashovers are produced so that the grid closest to
the cathode acquires a high voltage instead of a comparatively
low voltage. This results in a destructive breakdown of the
insulating layer between the cathode electrode and the adja-
cent substrate.
Appeal No. 1997-3148
Application 08/408,088
3
On pages 3 through 5 of the specification, Appel-
lants disclose that they solve this problem by providing a
high- resistance resistor 17 placed between the junction point
16 and
the terminal 14 as shown in figure 2. Appellants disclose on
page 5 of the specification that the resistance is of approxi-
mately 100K Ohms and that this prevents destructive breakdown
of the insulating layer.
Independent claim 16 is reproduced as follows:
16. A cathode ray tube comprising a display window,
grids and at least one semiconductor cathode for generating an
electron beam, a main surface of a semiconductor body of said
cathode being provided with an electrically insulting [sic,
insulating] layer having at least one aperture at the location
of an electron-emitting area, at least one gate or accelerator
electrode being present on the electrically insulating layer,
characterized in that the at least one gate or accelerator
electrode is connected to a terminal via a relatively high-
resistive resistor and that at least one semiconductor cathode
and the relatively high-resistive resistor are present on a
common support.
The references relied on by the Examiner are as
follows:
Appeal No. 1997-3148
Application 08/408,088
4
Van Gorkom et al. (Van Gorkom) 4,303,930 Dec. 1,
1981
Hoeberechts et al. (Hoeberechts) 4,682,074 July 21,
1987
Claims 12, 13, and 16 through 19 stand rejected
under
35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Hoeberechts. Claims 5
through 8, 14, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Hoeberechts in view of Van Gorkom.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants or
the Examiner, we make reference to the brief and answer for
the respective details thereof.
OPINION
After careful review of the evidence before us, we
agree with the Examiner that claims 12, 13, and 16 through 19
are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102, and claims 5 through
8, 14, and 15 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
At the outset, we note that Appellants state on page
8 of the brief that claims 5 through 8 and 12 through 19 are
considered to be patentable for similar reasons and are
grouped together. We note that Appellants argue all of the
Appeal No. 1997-3148
Application 08/408,088
5
claims as a single group in the brief. 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)
(July 1, 1995) as amended at 60 Fed. Reg. 14518 (March 17,
1995), which was controlling at the time of Appellants' filing
the brief, states:
For each ground of rejection which
appellant contests and which applies to a
group of two or more claims, the Board
shall select a single claim from the group
and shall decide the appeal as to the
ground of rejection on the basis of that
claim alone unless a statement is included
that the claims of the group do not stand
or fall together and, in the argument under
paragraph (c)(8) of this section, appellant
explains why the claims of the group are
believed to be separately patentable.
Merely pointing out differences in what the
claims cover is not an argument as to why
the claims are separately patentable.
We will, thereby, consider the Appellants' claims as standing
or falling together and we will treat claim 16 as a
representative claim of that group.
Claims 12, 13, and 16 through 19 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Hoeberechts.
It is
Appeal No. 1997-3148
Application 08/408,088
6
axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under § 102 can be
found only if the prior art reference discloses every element
of the claim. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ
136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986) and Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH
v. American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458, 221 USPQ
481, 485 (Fed. Cir. 1984). "Anticipation is established only
when a single prior art reference discloses, expressly or
under principles of inherency, each and every element of a
claimed invention." RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Sys.,
Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir.),
cert. dismissed, 468 U.S. 1228 (1984), citing Kalman v.
Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789
(Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984). The
prior art disclosure need not be expressed in order to
anticipate. Standard Havens Prods., Inc. v. Gencor Indus.,
Inc., 953 F.2d 1360, 1369, 21 USPQ2d 1321, 1328 (Fed. Cir.),
cert. denied, 506 U.S. 817 (1992).
Appeal No. 1997-3148
Application 08/408,088
7
On pages 8 and 9 of the brief, Appellants argue that
Hoeberechts fails to teach a relatively high resistive
resistor.
Appellants agree that Hoeberechts does teach a resistor 100,
but argues that Hoeberechts does not teach or even suggest
that the resistive polysilicon strips 100 which form resistors
0.4 R and R are high-resistive resistors.
As pointed out by our reviewing court, we must first
determine the scope of the claim. "[T]he name of the game is
the claim." In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369, 47 USPQ2d
1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
We note that Appellants' claim 16 recites "a
relatively high-resistive resistor." Turning to Appellants'
specification, we fail to find any particular definition for a
relatively high-resistive resistor. We do acknowledge that on
page 5 of Appel- lants' specification, Appellants disclose
that the preferred embodiment of a high-resistive resistor is
approximately 100K
Appeal No. 1997-3148
Application 08/408,088
8
Ohms. However, we fail to find that the definition of "a
rela- tively high-resistive resistor" requires this particular
value.
Our reviewing court states in In re Zletz, 893 F.2d
319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989) that "claims
must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably
allow." Moreover, when interpreting a claim, words of the
claim are
generally given their ordinary and accustomed meaning, unless
it appears from the specification or the file history that
they were used differently by the inventor. Carroll Touch,
Inc. v. Electro Mechanical Sys., Inc., 15 F.3d 1573, 1577, 27
USPQ2d 1836, 1840
(Fed. Cir. 1993). Although an inventor is indeed free to
define
the specific terms used to describe his or her invention, this
must be done with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and
precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480, 31 USPQ2d 1671,
1674 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Claims will be given their broadest
Appeal No. 1997-3148
Application 08/408,088
9
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification,
and limitations appearing in the specification are not to be
read into the claims. In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 858, 225
USPQ 1, 5 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 828 (1985)
citing In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 1571, 222 USPQ 934, 936
(Fed. Cir. 1984).
Hoeberechts discloses in column 6, lines 13 through
30, that figure 7 shows a sectional view of another embodiment
of a semiconductor emitter device 51. In this embodiment, we
note that Hoeberechts teaches a semiconductor cathode having a
main surface provided with an electrically insulated layer 56
and at least one gate or accelerator electrode being present
on the electrically insulated layer shown as element 57.
Hoeberechts further discloses in column 6, lines 42 through
55, that figure 9 shows a resistor connected to at least one
gate or accelerator electrode into a terminal.
We note that the resistance is disclosed to be a
voltage divider which is formed of resistive polysilicon
strips 100. We find that the Examiner properly construed the
claim language "relatively high-resistive resistor" as having
Appeal No. 1997-3148
Application 08/408,088
10
broad enough scope to read on the disclosed Hoeberechts'
resistor R as disclosed in column 6. As pointed out by the
Examiner in the Examiner's answer, Hoeberechts' disclosed
voltage divider would require resistance of a relatively high
resistance so not to allow large currents to be supplied to
the semiconductor device. We note that the language
"relatively high-resistive resistor" defines a large range of
resistance. For instance, a resistor having a resistance of
10K ohms is a relatively high-resistive resistor when compared
to a resistor having only 1 ohm or even 1K ohm of resistance.
Therefore, we find that Hoeberechts teaches all of the
limitations as recited in Appellants' claim 16.
Appellants further argue that Hoeberechts does not
teach that the semiconductor cathode and the relatively high
resistive resistance is to be provided on a common support.
We disagree. Hoeberechts discloses in figure 9 a common
support, element 90, which reads on the common support as
recited in Appellants' claim 16.
Appeal No. 1997-3148
Application 08/408,088
11
Claims 5 through 8, 14, and 15 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hoeberechts in view
of
Van Gorkom. We note that on pages 9 and 10 of the brief the
Appellants argue that neither Hoeberechts nor Van Gorkom
teaches or suggests a relatively high-resistive resistor. We
have found that Hoeberechts does teach a relatively high-
resistive resistor above and, therefore, we will sustain the
Examiner's rejection of these claims as well for the same
reasons as above.
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the
Examiner rejecting claims 12, 13, and 16 through 19 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed, and the decision of the Examiner
rejecting claims 5 through 8, 14, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
con- nection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR §
1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
Appeal No. 1997-3148
Application 08/408,088
12
STANLEY M. URYNOWICZ, JR. )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF
PATENT
MICHAEL R. FLEMING ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge )
INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
ERIC FRAHM )
Administrative Patent Judge )
MRF:psb
Appeal No. 1997-3148
Application 08/408,088
13
Corporate Patent Counsel
U.S. Philips Corporation
Patent Department
580 White Plains Road
Tarrytown, NY 10591