Appeal No. 2004-0632
Application No. 09/748,312
relied upon any showing of unexpected results for the claimed
range.4
Appellants argue that, while Tamura discloses ranges of
refractive indices of particular materials that fall within the
preferred ranges disclosed for similar elements of the present
application, this reference, either alone or in combination with
Stein, does not disclose or suggest forming the liquid crystal
element in such a way as to satisfy the condition of claim 1
(Brief, pages 10 and 12). This argument is not persuasive.
While Tamura only teaches a refractive index difference within
0.2 for the first three layers (substrate 21, gate insulating
film 23, and transparent insulating film 27),5 Tamura discloses
embodiments in Table 2 where the aforementioned refractive index
differences are 0.4 while teaching that interface reflection at
the boundary surface of the various films in a conventional
liquid crystal cell is undesired and can be obviated by keeping
the refractive indices of the various films within prescribed
values (Tamura, page 5, last paragraph; and page 7, first
4Appellants have disclosed Comparative Examples 1 and 2 in
the specification but have not discussed or relied upon these
examples in the Brief (see the specification, pages 60-64).
5See Figure 2; page 7, part d); and Table 2, Key 4 (the
difference in refractive index is only with the film above it).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007