Appeal 2006-3072
Application 10/419,763
Appellants argue the claims as a group as well as group claims 2 and
37 separately (Br. 7, 9, 11, and 12). Thus, we decide this appeal based on
claims 1 and 2 as representative of Appellants’ groupings of claims.
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2005).
The Examiner contends Walton teaches all of the claim elements,
including an aligned polymerized mesogenic material as a surface layer 14
on at least a part of the inner surface of each of the first and second cell
walls, except the element “that the anchoring energy or other properties at
the first interface is different from the anchoring energy or other properties
at the second interface” (Answer 3-4, citing Walton col. 8, ll. 50-56, and Fig.
5A). The Examiner contends Nakamura teaches a device in “which surface
layers are in contact with the liquid crystal [material] at first and second
interfaces respectively” (id. 4, citing Nakamura col. 14, ll. 27-40). The
Examiner contends “Nakamura teaches that in order to suppress the
occurrence of alignment defects to a practically negligible level, the surface
energies of the first and second surface layers are different through
appropriate designing of the alignment control layers of the substrates”
(id., citing Nakamura col. 13, ll. 13-18). The Examiner contends
Martinot-Lagarde evinces “[c]hanging the surface energy changes the
anchoring energy at the interface” (id. 4-5, citing Martinot-Lagarde col. 1, ll.
25-40). The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in this art “to have designed the first and second surface layers
of Walton with different surface energies, and hence different anchoring
energies, in order to obtain a liquid crystal device with minimal alignment
defects, as taught by Nakamura, and as evidenced by Martinot-Lagarde”
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013