Appeal No. 2006-1654
Application No. 09/929,488
Appellant argues that the improved performance parameters identified
in instant specification (e.g., reduction of threshold voltage, increased
response time, and optimal luminance, while concurrently controlling
contrast degradation) satisfy the requirement for identifying the “unexpected
results” that occur for the narrow range of twist angle prescribed by the
instant invention [corrected brief, page 7]. Appellant concludes that the
engineering graphs of the figures of the instant specification provide
evidence of the unexpected results that are obtained when twist angle β is
set within the narrow ranges prescribed by the claimed invention [id.,
emphasis added].
In response, the examiner asserts that Baur teaches that appellant's
twist angle is a results effective variable wherein the teaching of Baur is
robust to explain to those of ordinary skill in the art that one can establish
appellant’s claimed twist angle as a matter of tuning for a particular
application, e.g., for a high ambient light or low ambient light application
[answer, page 21]. The examiner argues that it is clear from the prior art
that a plurality of parameters are adjusted as a set to achieve desired
results [id.]. The examiner asserts that Baur discloses a range of twist
angles that is wide enough to include a broad range of displays useful in a
broad range of applications [id.]. The examiner further asserts that simply
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007