Appeal 2006-3072
Application 10/419,763
crystal device art and thus, would have recognized that the different interface
alignment layers on each of the cell walls taught by Walton would result in
layers with different surface energies and anchoring energies, even though as
Appellants point out, the materials, structure and mechanisms of the liquid
crystal devices of Walton and Nakamura are different. See In re Keller, 642
F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981) (“The test for obviousness
is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily
incorporated into the structure of the primary reference . . . . Rather, the test
is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to
those of ordinary skill in the art.”).
Indeed, one of ordinary skill in this art routinely following Walton
would have reasonably arrived at different polymerized aligned mesogenic
materials as interface alignment layers on the liquid crystal cell walls even if
this person would not have recognized that different surface energies and
thus, anchoring energies, would result. In this respect, it is well settled that
Appellants’ discovery of a new property of a product or elucidation of the
mechanism by which that product functions does not render the old product
again patentable simply because those practicing the product may not have
appreciated the property or the mechanism. See, e.g., In re Spada, 911 F.2d
705, 707, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1657 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Woodruff,
919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990); Titanium
Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 782-83, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed.
Cir. 1985); W.L. Gore & Assocs. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1548,
220 USPQ 303, 309 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“[I]t is . . . irrelevant that those using
the invention may not have appreciated the results[,] . . . [otherwise] it would
16
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013