Appeal 2006-3072
Application 10/419,763
level . . . providing the motivation to use it to modify Walton” whose
“ultimate objective is to minimize the number of defects in the liquid crystal
alignment,” thus addressing “the common problem of providing a defect-
free alignment of liquid crystal” (id. 7-8, citing Nakamura col. 13, ll. 13-18).
The Examiner contends “Walton teaches that the mesogenic alignment layer
is formed from a mixture of first and second polymerizable liquid crystal
monomers,” and Nakamura teaches the “concept of suppressing the
occurrence of alignment defects . . . through appropriate design of the
alignment control layers of the substrates” including its anchoring energy,
thus enabling one of ordinary skill in this art to arrive at the claimed
invention (id. 8-9 and 9-10, citing Walton col. 5, ll. 1-6, and Nakamura col.
13, ll. 13-18, and col. 5, ll. 38-45). With respect to claim 2, the Examiner
contends different polymerizable liquid crystals have different
polymerization temperatures (id. 11).
In the Reply Brief, Appellants contend one of ordinary skill in this art
would not have modified Walton in light of the teachings of Nakamura
because Walton and Nakamura differ in the type of liquid crystal devices
with respect to liquid crystal materials, alignment layers, mechanisms and
defects, and on this basis, respond to specific findings of the Examiner in the
Answer (Reply Br. 2-6). Appellants point out Walton discloses “near-
homeotropic alignment of liquid crystal devices” generally containing
nematic liquid crystal materials while Nakamura discloses “homogeneous
alignment” 2 devices containing chiral smectic liquid crystal materials which
2 Appellants disclose the principal alignments “homeotropic,” where the
molecules are “substantially perpendicular to the plane of the cell walls,”
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013