Ex Parte Moriya et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 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. Â§ 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 Claim 7 is withdrawn.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. Â§ 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. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Gunning and Lee. Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Gunning, Lee, and Kashima. Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 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. Â§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv). DECISION We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1---6 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a). No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 7