Ex Parte Yagi et al - Page 5




               Appeal No. 2006-1872                                                                                                
               Application No. 09/769,376                                                                                          
               invention are encompassed within the patented claim for comparison to the embodiments                               
               encompassed by the rejected claim.                                                                                  
                       Looking to the specification to determine the scope of rejected claim 1 and the                             
               embodiments encompassed therein, we conclude as did the Examiner, that the claim                                    
               encompasses embodiments also encompassed by patented claim 1 of Sugawa and that these                               
               claims are not patentably distinct.  This is because both claims are directed to epoxy optical                      
               sheets useful for liquid-crystal cell substrates (Sugawa, col. 7, ll. 1-3).  Both of the multilayer                 
               sheets are made by a process of forming a strippable or peelable layer on a support having a                        
               smooth surface, spreading an epoxy resin coating solution onto the resin layer, and hardening                       
               (Compare specification, p. 3, ¶ 1 with Sugawa, col. 1, l. 64 to col. 2, l. 6).  The similarities in the             
               starting materials and processing provide a reasonable basis to conclude that the claimed                           
               “smooth surface” of Sugawa’s claim 1 encompasses a surface with a surface roughness, Ra, of                         
               0.8 nm or lower as claimed.  This is so particularly because Sugawa describes using a support                       
               with the same surface roughness (Ra of 0.02 µm or less) as the support Appellants describe                          
               (compare Sugawa, col. 3, ll. 38-41 with specification, p. 6, ll. 21-25).  It appears that the                       
               formation of the free surface obtained by the coating method results in the surface smoothness,                     
               Ra, of 0.8 nm or less (specification, p. 3, ll. 6-20).  Under these circumstances, it is appropriate to             
               conclude that the differences are so insubstantial that there is no patentable distinction.                         
                       Appellants point out that the measurement of surface roughness of Ra of 0.02 µm or less                     
               disclosed in Sugawa is directed to the surface roughness of the support and not to the surface                      
               roughness of the epoxy optical sheet (Brief, p. 12).  We agree.  However, we do not agree that                      
               the difference in magnitude between this measurement of the support roughness and the claimed                       


                                                                5                                                                  



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007