Ex parte Trinchero et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 16, 1998

08432443 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 16, 1998)

Application for patent filed May 1, 1995.1
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(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 15
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte OLIVIER P. TRINCHERO,
DAVID A. NEW AND YVES PONTAILLIER
_____________
Appeal No. 97-2820
Application 08/432,4431
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before HAIRSTON, KRASS and BARRETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
Appeal No. 97-2820
Application No. 08/432,443
2
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 3, 4, 6
and 7.
The disclosed invention relates to an inline electron gun.
The main focus lens of the inline electron gun is formed by two
electrodes that face each other. Each of the main focus
electrodes is in turn formed from two different parts. One of
the two parts is positioned within the other one of the two
parts.
Claim 7 is the only independent claim on appeal, and it
reads as follows:
7. In an inline electron gun, including a plurality of
electrodes spaced from three cathodes, said electrodes forming at
least a beam forming region and a main focus lens in the paths of
three electron beams, a center beam and two side beams, and said
main focus lens being formed by the facing portions of two of
said electrodes, the improvement comprising
said facing portions of the two main focus lens electrodes
each including a first part having a single aperture therein, and
a second part positioned within said first part, said second part
including three inline apertures therein, and
said first part including an apertured cup-shaped part with
four spaced ledges, and said second part being an apertured plate
with four corners, each corner including an offset, said
apertured plate being attached to said four ledges at the
offsets.
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Appeal No. 97-2820
Application No. 08/432,443
3
Greninger 4,388,552 June 14, 1983
Gerlach 4,626,738 Dec. 2, 1986
Hernqvist et al.(Hernqvist)4,720,654 Jan. 19, 1988
Naiki 4,800,318 Jan. 24, 1989
Claims 3, 6 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Greninger.
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Greninger in view of Gerlach.
Claims 6 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Naiki in view of Hernqvist.
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Naiki in view of Hernqvist and Greninger.
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Naiki in view of Hernqvist and Gerlach.
Reference is made to the brief 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 3, 4, 6
and 7.
Appellants and the examiner recognize that the G3 and G4
electrodes in Greninger (Figure 3) are one-piece structures
(Brief, pages 3 and 4, and Answer, page 4). According to the
examiner (Answer, page 4), “the unity or diversity of parts
Appeal No. 97-2820
Application No. 08/432,443
4
appears to depend more upon the choice of the manufacturer, and
the convenience and availability of the machines and tools
necessary to construct the inline electron gun rather than any
inventive concept (see In re Lockhart [, 190 F.2d 208, 210,]
90 USPQ 214-216 [CCPA 1951]).” The examiner concludes (Answer,
page 4) that “it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art that the inline gun of Greninger is a fully functional
equivalent to the claimed inline electron gun.” Appellants argue
(Brief, page 4) that:
The fact is that Claim 7 claims more than just a two
part construction. Claim 7 includes a “first part”
that has “four spaced ledges”, which are not disclosed
in Greninger, and a “second part” that has “four
corners, each corner including an offset”, also which
are not disclosed in Greninger. The claimed structure
has more features than would be required simply to form
each of the Greninger main focus lens electrodes out of
two separate parts.
The obviousness rejection of claims 3, 6 and 7 based upon the
teachings of Greninger is reversed because of the correctness of
appellants’ argument.
The obviousness rejection of claim 4 is reversed because the
non-circular inline aperture teachings of Gerlach do not cure the
noted shortcomings in the teachings of Greninger.
Appeal No. 97-2820
Application No. 08/432,443
The examiner has not addressed the issue of whether it2
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
use a continuous ledge connection in lieu of the claimed
connection at the four spaced ledges and four corners.
5
Naiki discloses two electrodes G3 and G4 (Figure 7) that are
each formed from a first part 40 with a single aperture 50
therein, and a second part 60 positioned within the first part
40. The second part 60 includes three inline apertures 70B, 70G,
and 70R. A continuous flange 64 (Figure 6) on the second part 60
is connected to a continuous flange 44 (Figure 5) on the first
part 40. Thus, the two parts 40 and 60 are connected to each
other along one continuous ledge (Figure 7).2
According to the examiner (Answer, page 5), Hernqvist
discloses “a cup shaped part 22 with ledges (see FIG. 5, support
portions 80) and an aperture plate with offsets (eyelets 96) for
attaching an auxiliary electrode member (see col. 4, line 11-12,
shield member 86) to the main electrode 22.” The examiner is of
the belief that “[i]t would have been obvious to use a cup shaped
part with ledges for attaching an auxiliary electrode member with
offsets, as disclosed by Hernqvist et al., instead of the side
wall member, as disclosed by Naiki, as a design expedient”
(Answer, page 5).
Appeal No. 97-2820
Application No. 08/432,443
6
Appellants argue (Brief, pages 5 and 6) that:
Nowhere does Hernqvist et al. disclose four ledges and
nowhere does Hernqvist et al. disclose any second part
having offsets at its corners. There is no way that
Hernqvist et al. and Naiki can be combined to achieve
the present invention, and there is certainly no
suggestion in either of these references that would
make the presently claimed invention obvious.
We agree. In the absence of a prima facie case of obviousness,
the rejection of claims 6 and 7 is reversed.
Turning to the obviousness rejection of claims 3 and 4,
neither Greninger nor Gerlach discloses an electrode with one
part having four spaced ledges and another part having four
corners for connection with the four spaced ledges. The
obviousness rejection of claims 3 and 4 is reversed because
neither Greninger nor Gerlach is capable of curing the
shortcomings in the teachings of Naiki and Hernqvist.
Appeal No. 97-2820
Application No. 08/432,443
7
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 3, 4, 6 and 7
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
)
)
)
LEE E. BARRETT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 97-2820
Application No. 08/432,443
8
Joseph S. Tripoli
Patent Operations GE and RCA
Licensing Management Operation Inc.
CN 5312
Princeton, NJ 08543-0028