Appeal No. 2001-1516
Application No. 08/684,299
question partakes more of the nature of law than of fact, for it is an ultimate conclusion
based on a foundation formed of all the probative facts. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071,
1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
The proper inquiry for obviousness should not be limited to the specific structure
shown by the reference(s) but should be into the concepts fairly contained therein. The
overriding question to be determined is whether those concepts would have suggested
to the skilled artisan the modification called for by the claims. In re Bascom, 230 F.2d
612, 109 USPQ 98 (CCPA 1956).
In the instant case, the examiner cites Adachi as the primary reference. Adachi
clearly discloses the claimed first substrate (Adachi-32), a guest-host liquid-crystal layer
(Adachi-34) beneath a transparent electrode (Adachi-36) and having a dichroic dye
(Adachi-35), and a lower substrate (Adachi-33).
While Adachi does not explicitly disclose a plurality of “reflective pixel
electrodes...” and an “optical thin film layer...that...functions as a 8/4 phase shifter,” the
reference does disclose a combination of a reflective film 38 and a 8/4 wavelength
panel 39 which might, arguably, fill the claimed structural functions. Still, even,
assuming, arguendo, that all this is true of Adachi, the reference clearly does not
disclose or suggest the claimed “switching element” and the claimed optical thin-film
layer including “a plurality of coloring areas, and a pattern is formed for each coloring
area, so as to form color filters.”
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007