Appeal No. 1995-5117
Application No. 08/067,154
display claimed by Rieger (i.e., see patent claims 1 and 7
respectively). Contrary to the appellants’ belief, the mere
fact that Rieger’s patent claim 1 embraces a number of other
compounds in the liquid-crystalline medium which do not fall
within the scope of appealed claim 4 does not forestall an
obviousness conclusion with respect to those compounds
embraced by Rieger’s patent claim 1 which do fall within the
scope of appealed claim 4. Although the number of compounds
embraced by the genus defined by Rieger in his claim 1 may be
relatively large, an artisan with ordinary skill would have
considered each of these compounds as being obvious and
effective components of patentee’s claimed liquid-crystalline
medium. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804,
807, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir. 1989). In light of the
foregoing, it is our conclusion that the above mentioned
compounds embraced by formula V of Rieger’s patent claim 1,
which correspond to those defined by the formula in appealed
claim 4, would have been obvious to an artisan with ordinary
skill.
The appellants further argue that the characteristics
defined by appealed claim 4 relating to birefringence,
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007