Appeal 2006-3072
Application 10/419,763
because “alignment film 13a is made of a polyimide or aromatic polyamide
subjected to a uniaxial aligning treatment, such as rubbing” and “alignment
film 13b is made of a saline coupling agent, polyimide, polysiloxane, etc.,
not subjected to a uniaxial alignment treatment” (id., citing Nakamura col.
14, ll. 30-36). Appellants contend the references do not show that
Nakamura’s arrangement to reduce alignment defects with alignment films
used in layers 13a,13b would be applicable to Walton’s polymerized
mesogenic material of surface layers 14 (id. 11-12, citing Nakamura col. 14,
ll. 30-36). With respect to claim 2, Appellants contend the references do not
disclose how to arrive at different mesogenic material having different
anchoring energies, including polymerization at different temperatures (id.
12).
The Examiner responds Walton “teaches that a true homeotropic
alignment, which is a vertical alignment, as shown by Figs. 7A and 7B, may
give rise to regions of different tilt directions, whereby all the different tilt
directions cause optical scattering effects,” and “that it is better to provide a
slightly off-homeotropic alignment, with a built-in pre-tile which produces a
single favored direction for tilting,” thus reducing "the number of defects or
distortions in the liquid crystal alignment” (Answer 6-7, citing Walton
col. 10, ll. 1-11). The Examiner contends “Walton’s ultimate objective is to
minimize the number of defects in the liquid crystal alignment, not to
achieve identical alignments and therefore identical anchoring energies of
the opposing mesogen alignment layers” (id. 7). The Examiner contends
“Nakamura changes the anchoring energy at the interface” thus, teaching
“that the alignment defects are minimized to a practically negligible
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013