Ex parte Yoshida

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 29, 1999

08246140 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 29, 1999)

Application for patent filed May 19, 1994, entitled1
"Cathode-Ray Tube," which claims the foreign priority benefit
under 35 U.S.C. § 119 of Japanese Application 5-118535, filed
May 20, 1993.
- 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journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 21
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES

Ex parte AKIHIKO YOSHIDA
and JUN YAMAZAKI

Appeal No. 1997-0061
Application 08/246,1401

HEARD: October 18, 1999

Before KRASS, BARRETT, and FRAHM, Administrative Patent
Judges.
BARRETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
Appeal No. 1997-0061
Application 08/246,140
- 2 -
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from
the final rejection of claims 1-3.
We reverse.
BACKGROUND
The invention is directed to a fixing spring which is
used for securing a color-selecting electrode within a
cathode-ray tube display. In particular, Appellants claim a
fixing spring having a shape factor K determined by the
dimensions of the spring and the weight of the color-
selecting electrode.
Claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A cathode-ray tube having a color-selecting
electrode which is secured to a fluorescent glass panel
with a plurality of fixing springs between said
color-selecting electrode and a corresponding plurality
of fixing pins on said fluorescent glass panel, wherein
said fixing springs have a shape factor K in a range of
from 10 mm /kg to 100 mm /kg, wherein the shape factor K3 3
is determined by the following equation:
K=(a thickness of the fixing spring)x(a breadth of
the fixing spring) x(a height of the fixing spring)/(the2
length of the fixing spring)/(a weight of said
color-selecting electrode).
The examiner relies on the following prior art:
Appeal No. 1997-0061
Application 08/246,140
This is technically a Supplemental Examiner's Answer.2
- 3 -
Shrader et al. (Shrader) 3,296,477 January
3, 1967
Nakamura et al. (Nakamura) 3,671,794 June 20,
1972
Bauder 5,021,707 June 4,
1991
Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Shrader and Bauder.
Claims 2 and 3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Shrader, Bauder, and Nakamura.
We refer to the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 14) (pages
referred to as "EA__") and the communication entered2
July 17, 1996 (Paper No. 16) for a statement of the
Examiner's position and to the Substitute Appeal Brief
(Paper No. 13) (pages referred to as "Br__"), the Reply
Brief (Paper No. 15) (pages referred to as "RBr__"), and the
Surreply Brief (Paper No. 17) for a statement of Appellants'
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
Comments
The Examiner correctly interprets claim 1 to mean that
the prior art does not need to teach the equation for K, but
Appeal No. 1997-0061
Application 08/246,140
- 4 -
that it is only necessary to find a prior art spring/color-
selecting electrode combination that inherently falls within
the claimed range for K when calculated using the equation
for K. We appreciate that it is often difficult or
impossible to make a prima facie case that some dimensional
relationship is inherent in the prior art because patents
are not manufacturing documents and seldom provide
dimensions. The Examiner also correctly recognized that the
burden was on the Patent and Trademark Office to establish a
prima facie case of inherency. Therefore, rather than just
make an unsupported assertion that prior art fixing springs
were within the claimed range, the Examiner found the
Shrader patent that discloses spring dimensions. In the
Examiner's Answer, the Examiner added the Bauder patent and
made a reasonable assumption that the weight of an electrode
would be proportional to the area, so that the 3.54 kg
mask-frame weight for a 34 inch (diagonal) tube in Bauder
(col. 4, lines 14-15) would convert to 1.914 kg
(=(300 in )(3.54 kg)/(554.84 in )) for the 25 inch (diagonal)2 2
tube example for which spring dimensions are given in
Shrader. Thus, the Examiner provided a factual basis for
Appeal No. 1997-0061
Application 08/246,140
- 5 -
the rejection in the Examiner's Answer. Appellants'
arguments that "[t]here is simply not enough information set
forth in the references to identify the K value of these
devices as claimed by Applicants" (Br6) is not persuasive
because Shrader and Bauder together provide sufficient
information to calculate the K value.
With respect to Appellants' argument that the spring of
the disclosed invention and the spring of Shrader have a
much different shape and that "[t]here is simply no
indication that these two distinctly shaped springs would
have similar K values for which a valid comparison could be
made" (RBr3), we note that such argument is not commensurate
in scope with claim 1. Claim 1 does not recite any special
spring shape.
In our opinion, a shape factor K in a range from
10 mm /kg to 100 mm /kg, wherein the shape factor K is3 3
determined by the given equation, does not alone provide the
advantages described in the specification. The shape factor
equation does not include any terms that would account for
material. For example, a stainless steel spring is going to
be more resilient than an aluminum spring. Furthermore, the
Appeal No. 1997-0061
Application 08/246,140
The equation in Appellants' figure 5 should have B3 2
instead of B.
- 6 -
shape factor equation ignores the specific shape of the
spring. For example the length of the spring welded to the
spring holder 6 in figure 1 makes a difference in the amount
of deformation; a spring in which 1/3 of the length is
welded to the spring holder will deform more at the free end
(where H is measured) than a spring in which 1/2 of the
length is welded to the spring holder. Yet the equation for
K makes both springs equal if they have the same length.
Nevertheless, since the claims do not recite advantages
linked to the shape factor, we view the claims as merely
reciting a spring satisfying a particular relationship.
Obviousness
Due to a mathematical error, the Examiner has failed to
show that the spring in Shrader inherently has a shape
factor K in the claimed range from 10 mm /kg to 100 mm /kg. 3 3
The equation for K is as follows:3
K = t · B · H/W/L2
Appeal No. 1997-0061
Application 08/246,140
- 7 -
The Examiner's calculated range of from 23.395 mm /kg to3
72.15 mm /kg is erroneously based on the following equation:3
K = t · B · H · W/L2
For example, 23.394 mm -kg =(0.762)(12.7) (8.27)(1.9)/82.55. 3 2
Note that the units do not agree with the claimed units for
K. Before considering what the numbers are using the
correct equation, it is necessary to make two observations.
First, we find that only the 0.50 inch minimum width
(breadth) in Shrader can be fairly used to calculate to
spring shape factor because that is the width of the spring
portion and is consistent with the definition of breadth in
Appellants' figure 5. The 0.875 inch width is only used on
portion 33 where the spring is attached to the plate 36.
Second, we agree with Appellants' argument (RBr3) that
the height should be calculated with tan 2 instead of sin 2.
Using tan 2 is to the Examiner's benefit. We calculate the
height to be (3.25-1.375 inches)tan 10E=0.331 inches=8.40
mm. It is not known how the Examiner arrived at the values
Appeal No. 1997-0061
Application 08/246,140
- 8 -
of 13.29 mm /kg to 41.01 mm /kg using tan 10E(Paper No. 16,3 3
page 2).
Recalculating,
K=(0.762)(12.7) (8.40)/(1.9)/82.55=6.58 mm. This is outside2
the claimed range. We find no motivation to modify the
dimensions in Shrader so as to increase this value and the
Examiner has provided none. Accordingly, the rejection of
claim 1 is reversed. Nakamura does not cure the deficiency
with respect to the rejection of claim 1 over Shrader and
Bauder. Therefore, the rejection of dependent claims 2 and
3 is also reversed.
CONCLUSION
The rejections of claims 1-3 are reversed.
REVERSED
ERROL A. KRASS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
Appeal No. 1997-0061
Application 08/246,140
- 9 -
) BOARD OF
PATENT
LEE E. BARRETT ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
ERIC S. FRAHM )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 1997-0061
Application 08/246,140
- 10 -
HILL, STEADMAN and SIMPSON
85th Floor Sears Tower
Chicago, IL 60606