Appeal No. 2004-0632
Application No. 09/748,312
layer) and the functional thin film (the gate insulating
film)(Answer, paragraph bridging pages 5-6).2 Therefore we
determine that the examiner has found every limitation recited in
claim 1 on appeal in the disclosure of Tamura, with the exception
that the value of refractive indices difference in Tamura is 0.4
while the upper limit recited in claim 1 on appeal is 0.3
(Answer, page 6). These findings support a conclusion of prima
facie obviousness.3 See In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329-30,
65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2003), citing Titanium Metals
Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779
(Fed. Cir. 1985). The closeness of the refractive index
difference value found in Tamura with the claimed range would
have resulted in an expectation of similar properties for the
resultant liquid crystal cell. We note that appellants have not
2We note that the examiner’s finding is slightly incorrect
in that the refractive index of the glass substrate is “About
1.5" (see Tables 1 and 2, underlining added). Therefore the
calculated difference in largest and smallest refractive indices
between the electrode, substrate and functional thin film would
be about 0.4, including values slightly above and below 0.4. See
In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed.
Cir. 1990).
3Accordingly, a discussion of the secondary reference to
Stein is unnecessary to our decision.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007