Ex parte MULATIER et al. - Page 2




         Appeal No. 1998-2949                                                      
         Application 08/608,042                                                    

              This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from              
         the final rejection of claims 1-10.                                       
              We affirm-in-part.                                                   
                                   BACKGROUND                                      
              The disclosed invention is directed to an electro-optic              
         cell (pixel) having two liquid crystal domains which                      
         provides an enlarged viewing angle.                                       
              Claims 1 and 2 are reproduced below.                                 
                   1.  Electro-optic cell or pixel formed by two                   
              substrate layers, on one of which there is a pixel                   
              electrode and on the other a counter electrode, with a               
              layer of liquid crystal molecules between these two                  
              electrodes, in which the counter electrode is divided                
              into two parts by a groove, wherein a non-zero                       
              polarization voltage is applied between the electrode                
              and the counter-electrode when the pixel is not                      
              addressed.                                                           
                   2.  Electro-optic cell according to claim 1,                    
              wherein a pre-polarization voltage is between 0.8 to                 
              1.3 times the value of a threshold polarisation [sic]                
              voltage of said liquid crystal molecules in the                      
              presence of a uniform electric field.                                
              No prior art is relied on in the rejection.                          
              The specification stands objected to, and claims 1-10                
         stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, based              
         on a lack of an enabling disclosure.                                      



                                       - 2 -                                       





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007