Appeal No. 1998-2949
Application 08/608,042
Because only dependent claim 2 contains the limitation of
"between 0.8 and 1.3 times the value of the threshold
polarisation [sic] voltage," and because enablement goes to
the claimed invention, the rejection of claims 1 and 3-10 is
summarily reversed.
The Examiner's reasoning is plausible, although it
does not demonstrate a comprehension of the structure
described in the specification and the language of claim 2
as discussed, infra. The reasoning applied by the Examiner
is new in the Examiner's Answer and is not responded to by
Appellants. Thus, we are left to sort out the enablement
question without help from Appellants.
The specification discloses that the pixel structure
creates two optical domains with a non-uniform distribution
of the electric field E (page 5):
When a potential difference U is applied to the pixel
electrodes 14 and counter-electrode 15, this groove
creates a lateral component in the electric field E.
The electric field E is then perpendicular to the
electrodes in the areas where these are facing each
other, and inclined in the areas of the edges of the
pixel electrodes 14 and in the areas between the groove
18 and the electrode 14, as shown in figure 5. In this
way, two optical domains each having different tilt
angles are created by the non-uniform distribution of
the electric field E resulting from the structure of
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007