miscible monomer/immiscible monomer can be varied in order to provide the
desired phase separation of the liquid crystal upon polymerization of the
monomers to form the matrix.
(Examiner’s Answer, p. 9).
As apparent from the above, the rejection views Masayuki and routine experimentation as
providing one of ordinary skill in the art with the ability to obtain a polymerizable material
having a liquid crystalline material, (1a) a non-volatile, reactive monomeric ethoxylated acrylate
that is miscible with the liquid crystalline material and (1b) a non-volatile, reactive monomer that
is poorly miscible with the liquid crystalline material.
Regarding obviousness, the Federal Circuit has stated that:
[S]ection 103 requires assessment of the invention as a whole. This “as a whole”
assessment of the invention requires a showing that an artisan of ordinary skill in
the art at the time of invention, confronted by the same problems as the inventor
and with no knowledge of the claimed invention, would have selected the various
elements from the prior art and combined them in the claimed manner. In other
words, section 103 requires some suggestion or motivation, before the invention
itself, to make the new combination. (citations omitted).
Princeton Biochemicals, Inc. v. Beckman Coulter Inc., 411 F.3d 1332, 1337, 75 USPQ2d 1051,
1054 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The Federal Circuit also stated that unless the invention is analyzed as a
whole,
[A]n obviousness assessment might successfully break an invention into its
component parts, then find a prior art reference corresponding to each component.
This line of reasoning would import hindsight into the obviousness determination
by using the invention as a roadmap to find its prior art components. Further, this
improper method would discount the value of combining various existing features
or principles in a new way to achieve a new result - often the essence of invention.
(citations omitted).
Id.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007