Appeal No. 2004-0632
Application No. 09/748,312
Tamura et al. (Tamura) WO 99/44094 Sep. 02, 1999
(published International Patent Application)1
Claims 1-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Tamura in view of Stein (Answer, page 3,
referring to the rejection as set forth in Paper No. 8). We
affirm this ground of rejection for the reasons set forth below.
OPINION
The examiner finds that Tamura discloses a conventional
liquid crystal cell comprising an ITO (indium tin oxide)
electrode, a functional layer (transparent insulating layer 27 or
the SiN/SiO layer as both are insulative), and an insulating
substrate, where the index of refraction for the layers are
within 0.2 of each other (Paper No. 8, unnumbered page 3). The
examiner further finds that Tamura teaches that it was well known
to match the index of refraction of different layers of a liquid
crystal cell (id.). Furthermore, the examiner finds that the
refractive index of the ITO electrode in Tamura is 1.9-2.0 (id.,
citing Table 1), the refractive index of the gate insulating film
is 1.5-1.6, the refractive index of glass is 1.5, and thus Tamura
teaches a difference of 0.4 between the largest and smallest
refractive indices of the substrate, the electrode (the ITO
1We rely upon and cite from a full English translation of
this document, previously made of record.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007