Appeal No. 2006-1654
Application No. 09/929,488
prior art results [supplemental reply brief, page 4]. Significantly, we find
that these portions of the instant specification merely describe aspects of
conventional In-Plane-Switching (IPS) type liquid crystal displays.
Appellant further asserts that “unexpected results” are inherent in fig.
8 of the instant specification that shows a “sweet spot” at approximately
2.75 degrees of twist angle [supplemental reply brief, page 4]. We
disagree. In particular, we note that Baur explicitly discloses that a “liquid
crystal has a twistable structure and the amount of light transmission
through the liquid crystal depends on its degree of twist” [col. 3, lines 7-9].
We note that the amount of light transmission as a function of the twist
angle clearly affects the transmittance and contrast parameters. Therefore,
we agree with the examiner that the figures of the instant specification only
show expected results [see answer, pages 22 and 23]. Even if the figures of
the instant invention describe “actually-measured results,” as argued by
appellant [corrected brief, page 10], we note that appellant has failed to
provide evidence comparing the instant claimed invention to the closest prior
art to show that the results are unexpected compared to the prior art
results.
Objective evidence of unexpected results must be factually supported
by an appropriate affidavit or declaration to be of probative value. In re De
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007