Appeal No. 2003-0623
Application No. 09/348,632
4) Claims 1 through 6, 8, 9, 11, 110, 111, 113 through 115 and 117 through 123 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Chang, Poris and
Silman.
5) Claims 15 through 25, 40 through 50, 112 and 116 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Chang, the admitted prior art and
Lowenheim;
6) Claims 12 through 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined
disclosures of Chang, the admitted prior art, Lowenheim and Aigo;
7) Claims 1 through 6, 8, 9, 11, 15 through 25, 40 through 50 and 109 through 123
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over either Jain, Gelatos or Huang, and Poris
and the admitted prior art; and
8) Claims 12 through 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over either Jain,
Gelatos, or Huang, and Poris, the admitted prior art and Aigo.
We reverse each of the foregoing rejections.
We reverse the examiner’s Section 112 rejections for essentially those reasons set forth at
pages 5 and 6 of the Brief. Notwithstanding the examiner’s arguments to the contrary, we concur
with the appellants that one of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated that at least some of
the additives specifically mentioned in the specification are polarizing materials. See attached Grant
& Hackh’s Chemical Dictionary, Fifth Edition, pages 459-460 (1987). Not only is the term
“polarizing” clear to those of ordinary skill in the art, but it also is inherently or implicitly described
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007