Appeal 2006-3072
Application 10/419,763
form a “bookshelf” structure (Reply Br. 2). Appellants contend the defects
in orientation of the liquid crystal materials in Walton’s devices occur when
a field is applied while the defects in Nakamura’s devices occur “primarily
during formation of the cell, not during application of a field” (id. 3-4).
Appellants contend Walton “solves the field induced defect problem . . .
with identical [alignment layer] surfaces” while “Nakamura indicates that
when the difference between the surface energies is small, the static defect
problem is not solved” (id. 4-5 (original emphasis omitted), citing Nakamura
col. 5, ll. 38-45, and Examples 1, 4, and 6).
The issue in this appeal is whether the Examiner has carried the
burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness over the combined
teachings of Walton, Nakamura, and Martinot-Lagarde.
The plain language of independent claim 1 specifies a liquid crystal
device comprising at least, inter alia, any part of the inner surface of each of
the first and second cell walls, however small, including at least a surface
layer, however small, formed from any manner and amount of polymerized
aligned mesogenic material, that can be different on each wall, which is in
contact with, that is, interfaces with, to any extent a layer of any manner of
liquid crystal material, wherein the anchoring energies of the two interfaces
differ to any extent, however small. In claim 2, the differences in anchoring
energies is specified to result from polymerization of the mesogenic
materials, which can be different, at different temperatures. The open-ended
terms “comprising” and “including” open claim 1 to include any manner of
and “planar,” where the molecules are “inclined substantially parallel to the
plane of the cell walls” (Specification 1:29-2:1).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013