Appeal No. 1995-5117
Application No. 08/067,154
OPINION
For the reasons set forth below, we will sustain each of
these rejections.
Concerning the obviousness-type double patenting
rejection, the appellants argue that the subject matter
defined by the claims of the Rieger patent (i.e., see formula
V of patent claim 1) is merely generic to, and would not have
suggested, the subject matter defined by appealed claim 4. It
cannot be
gainsaid, however, that compounds of the type defined by the
formula recited in appealed claim 4 would result from the
appropriate selection of choices recited in Rieger’s patent
claim 1. In particular, selecting for formula V of patent
claim 1 one of the two choices for r (namely, the numeral 1)
and any one of three out of five choices for substituent X
(namely, Cl, CF or OCF ) would have yielded compounds within3 3
the scope of those defined by the appealed claim 4 formula.
The above discussed circumstances reveal clearly that the
liquid crystal mixture in the matrix liquid crystal display
defined by appealed claim 4 substantially overlaps the liquid-
crystalline medium in the electrooptical liquid-crystal
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007