Appeal No. 2006-1771
Application No. 10/407,247
exception of the half wave plate and the slow axis thereof. With respect to the half wave plate,
the examiner made the following additional findings (answer, page 5):
Since Applicant admits the amendment to claim 26 is unrelated to
patentability Okamoto is evidence that ordinary workers in the art of liquid
crystals would find the reason, suggestion, or motivation to add a phase plate or
half wave plate to provide satisfactory phase plate performance for improved
display performance.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the
art of liquid crystals at the time the invention was made to modify the LCD of
Okamoto with the half wave plate of Okamoto to provide satisfactory phase plate
performance for improved display performance.
In response, appellant argues (reply brief, pages 2 and 3):
Appellant is mystified at how the Examiner can read so much into
Appellant’s statements made in the Response filed on March 2, 2004.
Furthermore, Appellant respectfully asserts that the Examiner’s interpretations of
Appellant’s statements and allegations are clearly a distortion of the record. For
example, at no time has Appellant ever made any admissions with regard to the
equivalency of a half wave plate to a retardation film, or that a half wave plate
somehow anticipates a retardation film. Therefore, the Examiner’s allegations
that Appellant has made “admissions” and that these alleged “admissions” are
somehow motivation with which to modify Okamoto et al. are simply untrue and
not supported by the record.
With regard to Okamoto et al., Appellant respectfully asserts that the
Examiner has yet to provide any proper motivation with which to modify
Okamoto et al. Specifically, Appellant respectfully asserts that neither
Appellant’s statements made in the Response filed on March 2, 2004, nor the
reasoning provided by the Examiner, both in the Office Actions and Examiner’s
Answer, provide proper motivation with which to modify Okamoto et al. to arrive
at Appellant’s claimed invention. Although the Examiner continues to rely upon
Appellant’s statements made in the Response filed on March 2, 2004 for allegedly
providing motivation for modifying Okamoto et al., the simple irrefutable fact
remains that Okamoto et al. is completely silent with regard to adding a half wave
plate to provide “satisfactory phase plate performance for improved display
performance,” as alleged by the Examiner.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007