Ex Parte Moriya et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 18, 2016

12365402 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 18, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/365,402 0210412009
25191 7590 04/18/2016
BURR & BROWN, PLLC
POBOX7068
SYRACUSE, NY 13261-7068
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
NorihisaMORIYA
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
920_041 DIV 5947
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, LAUREN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2871
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
04/18/2016 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte NORIHISA MORIY A and KANAMI IKEGAMI
Appeal2014-006024
Application 12/365,402
Technology Center 2800
Before ERIC S. FRAHM, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and
NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.
PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 file this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1---6, which constitute all the claims
pending in this application. Claim 7 is withdrawn. Final Act. 2. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify Dai Nippon Printing, Ltd. as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 1.
Appeal2014-006024
Application 12/365,402
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' disclosed and claimed invention generally relates to a
phase difference control component capable of realizing a liquid crystal
display device having a wide angle of visibility. Spec. i-f 14. 2
Claim 1 is representative and reads as follows (with emphases
added to the disputed limitations):
1. A process for producing a phase difference control
component, comprising a base material and a phase difference
control layer formed of a fixed liquid crystal material provided
on the base material through an aligning film, the process
comprising the steps of:
forming an unaligned aligning film on a base material;
applying collimated polarized light to the unaligned
aligning film from a vertical direction to the base material to
form an aligned aligning film by a photoalignment method;
providing a liquid crystal material on the aligned aligning
film to form a coating film;
aligning the liquid crystal material in such a way that an
angle of molecules of the liquid crystal material, present at an
interface of the aligned aligning film and the coating film, to the
base material is substantially 0 (zero) degrees; and
curing the liquid crystal material to form the phase
difference control layer.
2 Our Decision refers to the Final Office Action mailed May 14, 2013
("Final Act."); Appellants' Appeal Brief filed Nov. 25, 2013 ("App. Br.");
the Examiner's Answer mailed Feb. 26, 2014 ("Ans."); Appellants' Reply
Brief filed Apr. 15, 2014 ("Reply. Br."); and the Specification filed Feb. 4,
2009 ("Spec.").
2
Appeal2014-006024
Application 12/365,402
Gunning, III
("Gunning")
Lee
Kashima
Jeon
References
us 5,926,241 July 20, 1999
US 2002/0012090 Al Jan. 31, 2002
US 2004/0233362 Al Nov. 25, 2004
US 2006/0244884 Al Nov. 2, 2006
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1-3 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Gunning and Lee.
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Gunning, Lee, and Kashima.
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Gunning, Lee, and Jeon.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 4--9) and Reply Brief (Reply Br. 1-
9) that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants' arguments.
Unless otherwise noted, we adopt as our own the findings and reasons set
forth by the Examiner in the Office Action from which this appeal is taken
(Final Act. 3---6) and in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants'
Appeal Brief (Ans. 2-5), and we concur with the conclusions reached by the
Examiner. For emphasis, we consider and highlight specific arguments as
presented in the Briefs.
Appellants contend Lee does not teach or suggest "applying
collimated polarized light to the unaligned aligning film from a vertical
3
Appeal2014-006024
Application 12/365,402
direction to the base material to form an aligned aligning film ... " (the
"applying step"), as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 4---6; see also, Reply Br. 1-2
and 5-9. In particular, Appellants argue Figure 5 of Lee and its
accompanying description in paragraphs 65-66 simply teach irradiating an
LCD substrate with a circularly or elliptically polarized beam of light to
form regions having different polarization directions. App. Br. at 4--5; Reply
Br. 1-2. According to Appellants, this is different from the language of
claim 1 that inherently requires the collimated polarized light to have a
single polarization to align the angle of molecules of liquid crystal material
to have an angle of substantially zero degrees. See Reply Br. 2. Appellants
further argue that Figures 1--4 of Lee and the accompanying descriptions in
paragraphs 49-51 do not teach or suggest the applying step of claim 1, but
instead disclose "a method of aligning the molecules of the photosensitive
compound by adjusting an angle of the substrate (i.e., rotation angle), as
shown in Figures 1, 3, and 4 of Lee to be within cone 17 in Fig. 2 of Lee to
impart an affirmative tilt angle to the molecules." App. Br. 5---6. Citing
Figures 1--4 and paragraph 51 of Lee, Appellants further argue Lee is limited
to "adjusting the angle of the substrate having an alignment film thereon to
provide a "tiltly aligned" alignment film. Reply Br. 6.
Regarding the combination of Gunning and Lee, Appellants argue the
combination would not provide the claimed phase difference control
component because the resulting alignment film would have an affirmative
pretilt angle, rather than a pretilt angle of substantially zero degrees. App.
Br. 7-8. Appellants also argue Gunning is limited to compensating for
pretilt angles by forming multiple alignment layers in the compensators and
4
Appeal2014-006024
Application 12/365,402
does not disclose any method for forming a single alignment layer having a
pretilt angle of substantially zero degrees. Reply Br. 3-5.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments that the Examiner has
erred. First, the Examiner's rejection is based on the combined teachings of
Gunning and Lee, but Appellants attack the references individually. Non-
obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually
where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of
references. In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The relevant inquiry is whether the claimed subject matter would have been
obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art in light of the combined
teachings of the references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA
1981 ). Here, Appellants argue Gunning does not disclose any method for
forming a single alignment layer having a pretilt angle of substantially zero
degrees (Reply Br. 3 and 5), but the Examiner relies on Lee as teaching the
applying step of claim 1. Ans. 2--4. Appellants argue Lee does not suggest
a method in which the angle of the molecules of the liquid crystal material
and the coating film is substantially zero degrees (Reply Br. 6), but the
Examiner relies on Gunning as teaching low or zero pretilt angles. Id. at 3-
4.
Second, we agree with the Examiner's finding that Lee teaches the
applying step of claim 1. Ans. 3. In particular, we agree with the
Examiner's finding that paragraphs 50 and 51 of Lee are directed to an
optical alignment apparatus illustrating a first basic principle of an optical
alignment for forming alignment films on a surface of a LCD substrate by
moving the LCD substrate, which is entirely different from the embodiment
shown in Figure 5. Id. These paragraphs, and Figures 1 and 2, of Lee, as
5
Appeal2014-006024
Application 12/365,402
well as paragraphs 52-54, which describe the first embodiment of Lee
shown in Figure 3, teach that collimated polarized light, which is either
circularly or elliptically polarized, is applied to the unaligned aligning film
from a vertical direction to the LCD base material to form an aligned
aligning film. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Lee teaches the
applying step of claim 1, as interpreted by Appellants, because in the optical
alignment method shown in Figures 1-3, and described in paragraphs 50-54,
the collimated polarized light applied to align the molecules of the liquid
crystal material has a single polarization---either circular or elliptical.
Third, we are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that the
combination of Gunning and Lee would not provide the claimed phase
difference control component because, as Appellants argue, the resulting
alignment film would have an affirmative pretilt angle, rather than a pretilt
angle of substantially zero degrees. App. Br. 7-8. As the Examiner finds,
and as Appellants' acknowledge, Gunning teaches "that low, or zero, pretilt
angles may be required for the formation of A-plate compensators." Ans. 4
(citing Gunning 5:36-38); see Reply Br. 3. Although Lee teaches, as
Appellants' argue, in the optical alignment method of Lee, the molecules of
the photosensitive compound in the polymeric alignment film are "tiltly
aligned" (see i-f 50), Lee also teaches the rotation angle of the LCD substrate
15 "should be adjusted according to ... the desired pretilt angle." Lee i-f 49.
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Lee and Gunning
teaches "aligning the liquid crystal material in such a way that an angle of
molecules of the liquid crystal material, present at an interface of the aligned
aligning film and the coating film, to the base material is substantially 0
(zero) degrees," as recited in claim 1, because the angle of the substrate 15
6
Appeal2014-006024
Application 12/365,402
of Lee can be adjusted to impart a pretilt angle of zero degrees as taught in
Gunning.
Based upon the Examiner's findings above, on this record, we are not
persuaded of error in the Examiner's reliance on the combined teachings and
suggestions of the cited prior art to teach or suggest the disputed limitations
of claim 1, nor do we find error in the Examiner's resulting legal conclusion
of obviousness. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim
1. We also sustain the Examiner's rejections of dependent claims 2-6
(relying on the same base combination of Gunning and Lee), which are not
separately argued. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1---6 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
7