Appeal No. 1998-1993
Application 08/320,729
the device of one of the other references. Thus, one of
ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to
simply combine features of the different liquid crystal
devices of the applied prior art. Therefore, we agree with
appellants that the particular citation of Morozumi, Asars and
Togashi in the rejection before us results from an improper
attempt by the examiner to reconstruct the invention in
hindsight. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of
claims 44-49 and 51 based on the collective teachings of
Morozumi, Asars and Togashi.
We now consider the rejection of claims 50 and 53 based
on the teachings of Morozumi, Togashi, Asars and Holmberg.
Morozumi, Togashi and Asars are applied as discussed above.
The examiner cites Holmberg as teaching another low leakage
liquid crystal device in which the channel thickness ranges
from 100 D to 5000 D with approximately 1000 D being one
example. The examiner notes that Holmberg also teaches a
ratio of drain current in the ON state to drain current in the
OFF state to be about 10 . The examiner finds that the liquid7
crystal device of Morozumi, Asars and Togashi with a channel
15
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007