Appeal No. 1998-2949
Application 08/608,042
Answer, the Examiner added considerably to the reasoning
(EA3):
Applicant has neither fully disclosed nor explained to
one of ordinary skill in the art how the structure of
two domains is maintained by having a polarization
potential not equal to zero when the pixel is not
addressed, wherein the polarization potential disclosed
by Applicant is 0.8-1.3 times the threshold voltage.
In the liquid crystal art, "threshold" voltage is
defined such that the value of a driving voltage in an
ON-state is above the threshold voltage and the value
of a driving voltage in an OFF-state is below the
threshold voltage. Therefore, it is contradictory with
the definition and unclear how the potential in an
OFF-state disclosed by Applicant can be greater than
[the] threshold voltage, i.e., 1.0-1.3 times the
threshold voltage.
The Examiner further states (EA3): "Since claim 1 recites a
'non-zero polarization voltage' being applied when the pixel
is not addressed, and since the specification discloses
0.8-1.3 times the threshold voltage as the non-zero voltage,
the claims are not enabled by the specification for 1.0-1.3
times the threshold voltage."
Therefore, the Examiner concludes that the claims are
not enabled for pre-polarization voltages equal to or
greater than the threshold polarization voltage (i.e., 1.0-
1.3 times the threshold voltage) because the pixel would
then be ON, not OFF (i.e., not addressed), as claimed.
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007