Appeal 2006-3072
Application 10/419,763
(id. 5). With respect to claim 2, the Examiner contends the claim is a
product-by-process claim and the claimed product is taught by the references
(id. 5-6).
Appellants contend modifying Walton’s “device so that the anchoring
energies at the two interfaces differ” is contrary to Walton’s objective of “a
controlled degree of tilted-off homeotropic alignment . . . [achieved] by
using identical alignments on both surfaces, each providing the same tilted-
off alignment . . . because the anchoring energies on both surfaces are the
same” (Br. 7-9, citing Walton col. 2, ll. 29-50, col. 7, ll. 58-60, col. 8,
ll. 44-45, col. 10, ll. 9-39 and Figs. 5A-C, 7, and 8; see also Br. 10). In this
respect, Appellants point out Walton states “the ‘pre-tilt produces a single
favored direction for tilting of the liquid crystal molecules when a voltage is
applied across the liquid crystal layer 16’” (Br. 9, citing Walton col. 10,
ll. 9-11).
Appellants contend Walton would not have been combined with
Nakamura because neither reference discloses how to modify Walton so that
polymeric liquid crystal alignment layers 14 of Fig. 5A-C have different
anchoring energies, that is, there is no enabling disclosure in the references
“how different interfaces between a liquid crystal layer and a polymerized
mesogenic material can have different anchoring energies” (id. 10-11). In
this respect, Appellants contend Walton’s opposed layers 14 “are made in
the same way” and there is “no disclosure of how to make the layers 14 on
opposite sides of the cell different from each other” or to make the anchoring
energies of the two opposed layers differ (id. 10). Appellants contend
“Nakamura is not concerned with polymerized aligned mesogenic materials”
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013