Appeal No. 2006-1872
Application No. 09/769,376
thickness precision is relative to Ra: The larger the thickness precision, the larger the resultant Ra
value and vice versa. Appellants are comparing disclosures of thickness in Example 1 in Sugawa
to Example 1 of the specification.
We are not persuaded by this argument. First, there is no evidence that the thickness
accuracy disclosed in Sugawa is comparable to the thickness value disclosed in Appellants’
Example 1. In Appellants’ Example 1, the 7 µm value is disclosed as a standard deviation of
thickness. Appellants provide no convincing evidence or explanation indicating that this
standard deviation is a “thickness precision” measurement much less equivalent to the “thickness
accuracy” measurement of Sugawa. Second, even if the thickness values can be compared, they
do not necessarily reflect a difference in Ra value. This is because the orientation of the support
appears to affect the thickness accuracy. In discussing the thickness accuracy, Sugawa discloses
that it is preferable to maintain the surface of the support “as horizontally as possible” (Sugawa,
col. 3, ll. 41-45). Differences in horizontal orientation will affect the thickness accuracy.
Therefore, a difference in thickness accuracy between the two Examples does not establish that
the Ra of Sugawa is outside the claimed range.
The Examiner has established a reasonable basis for anticipation based upon inherency
with respect to the subject matter of claims 1 and 3-6 that has not been sufficiently rebutted by
Appellants.
Anticipation by Kon
With regard to the rejection of claims 1 and 3-5 as anticipated by Kon, we agree with the
Appellants that Kon fails to describe the claimed liquid-crystal cell substrate. The portion of
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007