Appeal No. 95-0110
Application 07/953,783
OPINION
The sole reference of record which is being relied on
as evidence of lack of novelty or, alternatively, as evidence of
obviousness is:
Suzuki et al. (Suzuki) 4,973,738 November 27, 1990
Claims 11 and 12 stand rejected under 35 USC 102(e) as
being anticipated by Suzuki, or, alternatively, as being
unpatentable from Suzuki under 35 USC 103. We reverse.
Suzuki describes novel ferroelectric liquid crystal
compounds defined by formulae I and II (column 2, line 19 through
column 3, line 10). The compounds are said to be useful in
electro-optical image or display elements (column 1, lines 7
through 11). Useful methods for preparing the compounds are set
forth from column 4, line 11 through column 12, line 31.
The examiner's stated position under 35 USC 102(e) is
set forth on page 5 of the Answer wherein it is recited that:
Suzuki discloses in claim 1 an optically active
trifluoromethylated compound like the compounds of the
instant application. The core rings can be phenyl or
biphenyl. Although not specifically shown, they are
claimed in claim 1. (emphasis ours)
Manifestly, a reference which discloses compounds which are only
"like" the compounds claimed by appellants cannot describe, in
the sense of 35 USC 102, the invention claimed by appellants.
Moreover, as noted by appellants in their brief and as well-
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007