Appeal No. 2003-0269
Application No. 09/313,547
chemically interactive material) and the aligning layer
(applicant’s orientation layer). Therefore, it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
at the time of the invention to insert a barrier layer
of relatively non reactive material in between the
electrode and the orientation layer in order to prevent
short circuit between the electrodes.
We refer to the brief and reply brief and to the answer for
a complete exposition of the opposing viewpoints expressed by the
appellants and by the examiner concerning the above noted
rejection.
OPINION
For the reasons which follow, this rejection cannot be
sustained.
In order to establish a prima facie case of obviousness
within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the applied prior art
must provide a suggestion for the modification proposed by the
examiner and a reasonable expectation that the proposed
modification would be successful. In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894,
903-04, 7 USPQ2d 1673, 1680-81 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Here, the prior art applied by the examiner provides neither
the requisite suggestion nor reasonable expectation of success.
This is because no evidence exists that the overcoat or barrier
layer teaching of Tsai would have been considered by an artisan
to be relevant to a problem or any other such characteristic
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007