Appeal No. 1996-0896
Application No. 08/091,406
Walba et al. (Walba), “Design and Synthesis of a New
Ferroelectric Liquid Crystal Family,” J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1986,
108, 5210-5221; and
Patel et al. (Patel), “Observation of Polarization Sign
Inversion in Ferroelectric Liquid Crystals Produced by Doping
S Liquid Crystals,” J. Phys. Chem. 1987, 91, 5838-5840.
c
Claims 1 through 3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
102(e) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Saito (Answer, page 4). We
reverse these rejections for reasons which follow.
OPINION
A. The Rejection under § 102(e)
As noted by appellants on page 7 of the Brief, under 35
U.S.C. § 102, every limitation of a claim must identically
appear in a single prior art reference for it to anticipate
the claim. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832, 15 USPQ2d 1566,
1567 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Appellants argue that Saito discloses
liquid crystal compounds whose formula generically encompasses
the claimed subject matter but this reference has no specific
example directed to any species within the scope of the claims
or even to any compound containing two asymmetric carbon atoms
(Brief, pages 8-14). The examiner finds that Saito discloses
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007