Appeal No. 1998-2045
Application 08/402,374
teachings of one reference cannot simply be substituted into
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 23-29 and 32 based on the collective teachings of
Morozumi, Asars and Togashi.
We now consider the rejection of claims 30 and 31 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
15
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007