The prior art reference Masayuki does not provide the motivation to arrive at the claimed
subject matter. According to the rejection, Masayuki teaches using an ethoxylated acrylate
monomer that is poorly miscible with a chosen liquid crystalline material and because of this has
a phase separation problem that is controlled by the addition of a miscible oligomer mixture.
However, we observe that Masayuki does not mention, let alone suggest, selecting a liquid
crystalline material and an ethoxylated acrylate monomer that is miscible with the selected liquid
crystalline material.
We are not persuaded that a potential phase separation problem between a monomer and
a liquid crystalline material leads one of ordinary skill in the art to select a liquid crystalline
material and an ethoxylated acrylate monomer that is miscible with the selected crystalline
material. Even if we accept the fact that routine experimentation would allow a person of
ordinary skill in the art to obtain such a mixture, this does not explain why one of ordinary skill
in the art would desire such a mixture or be guided toward such a mixture. Specifically, while
routine experimentation on a known set of components may be obvious, we do not see where
Masayuki or the prior art in general directs one of ordinary skill in the art to select appellants’
particular materials, i.e., a liquid crystalline material and an ethoxylated acrylate monomer that
are miscible with each other.
The Office has the burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. Based upon
the record presented, we are unable to conclude that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
been motivated to select the appropriate liquid crystalline material and (1a) an ethoxylated
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007