Appeal 2006-3235
Reexamination Control No. 90/006,696
1 Aszodi’s Figure 3 as showing an approximate sharpness of 0.2 ēC and
2 contrasts that with the 0.001 ēC figure attributed to K18 at column 3, lines
3 61-66 of the ‘857 patent:
4 One of the nematic liquid crystals used for this
5 invention is 4 cyano-4'hexyl-biphenyl. It is sold by E.M.
6 Chemical under the trade name of K-18 nematic liquid
7 crystal. I found it has 4 phase transition temperatures;
8 the temperature band width of each phase transition is
9 estimated to be on the order of 0.001 degree Celsius.
10 Br. 39, para. 7. However, the claim places no restriction on the degree of
11 sharpness of the phase transition. Nor is it material to the rejection that
12 Aszodi fails to discuss the detectable power level of the hot spot, Br. 39,
13 para. 8, since the claim does not address power levels. Furthermore, even if
14 the results achieved by Appellant’s invention are unexpectedly superior in
15 the forgoing respects to those obtained by Aszodi, unexpected results cannot
16 be relied on to overcome a rejection for anticipation. Schreiber, 128 F.3d at
17 1477, 44 USPQ2d at 1431; Spada, 911 F.2d at 708, 15 USPQ2d at 1657.
18 Nor does the claim preclude knowledge of the heater temperature,
19 ambient temperature, and phase transition temperature, as is allegedly
20 required by Aszodi. Br. 40, paras. 9-11.
21 D. Conclusion
22 The Examiner has established that Aszodi satisfies every limitation of
23 Claim 11. Accordingly, the rejection of Claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
24 for anticipation by Aszodi is affirmed.
25 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
26 this appeal may be extended. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv)(2006).
27 AFFIRMED
28
45
Page: Previous 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013