KYUSHU UNIVERSITY, NATIONAL UNIVERSITY CORPORATION et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 27, 202014634426 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 27, 2020) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 14/634,426 02/27/2015 Hirotsugu KIKUCHI 19629-0179 1043 24633 7590 05/27/2020 HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP IP GROUP, COLUMBIA SQUARE 555 THIRTEENTH STREET, N.W. WASHINGTON, DC 20004 EXAMINER FROST, ANTHONY J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1782 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/27/2020 ELECTRONIC 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. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): HLUSDocketing@hoganlovells.com dcptopatent@hoganlovells.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte HIROTSUGU KIKUCHI, SHIN-ICHI YAMAMOTO, YASUHIRO HASEBA, and TAKAFUMI KUNINOBU ____________ Appeal 2019-004678 Application 14/634,426 Technology Center 1700 ____________ Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., Administrative Patent Judges. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 50–60. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The real parties in interest are JNC Corporation and JNC Petrochemical Corporation. (Appeal Br. 1). Appeal 2019-004678 Application 14/634,426 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant’s invention is generally directed to a liquid crystal display element using a liquid crystal material exhibiting a blue phase in which the element can be used in a wide temperature range, and can achieve a short response time, a large contrast, and a low drive voltage. (Spec 6.) Claim 50 illustrates the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below: 50. A liquid crystal display element having two or more substrates arranged oppositely to each other and a liquid crystal material exhibiting a blue phase between the substrates, where a polar component of surface free energy on a substrate surface in contact with the liquid crystal material is in the range of 5 to 20 mJm-2, and wherein a contact angle on the substrate surface of the liquid crystal material in an isotropic phase is 50 degrees or less, wherein the substrate surface is subjected to coupling treatment. Appeal Br. 9, Claims Appendix. Appellant (see generally Appeal Br.) requests review of the following rejections from the Examiner's Final Office Action (Final Act. 2–8): I. Claims 50–56 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Haruyama (US 2009/0109381 A1, published April 30, 2009) (“Haruyama”) in view of Abe et al. (JP 07-152037 A, published June 16, 1995) (“Abe”)2. II. Claims 57 and 60 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Haruyama in view of Abe, and further in view of Kikuchi (Hirotsugu Kikuchi et al., “Fast Electro-Optical Switching in Polymer-Stabilized Liquid Crystalline Blue Phases for 2 The Examiner relies on an English machine translation dated May 19, 2015 when referring to the teachings of Abe. For the purposes of this opinion, we likewise refer to the English machine translation when discussing the teachings of Abe. Appeal 2019-004678 Application 14/634,426 3 Display Application,” SID Symposium Digest of Technical Papers, 38 (1) 1737–1740 (2007)) (“Kikuchi”). III. Claims 58 and 59 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Haruyama in view of Abe, and further in view of Cao (Wenyi Cao et al., “Lasing in a three-dimensional photonic crystal of the liquid crystal blue phase II,” Nature Materials 1, 111–113 (2002)) (“Cao”). OPINION Upon consideration of the evidence in this appeal record in light of the respective positions the Examiner and Appellant advance, we determine that Appellant has not identified reversible error in the Examiner’s determination that the applied prior art would have rendered the subject matter recited in claims 50–60 obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejections for the reasons set forth in the Final Action and the Answer. We refer to the Examiner's Final Office Action for a complete statement of the rejection of the claims. (Final Act. 2–8.) We add the following. Claim 503 is directed to a liquid crystal display element comprising a substrate in contact with the liquid crystal material that has a polar component of surface free energy in the range of 5 to 20 mJ/m2 and a contact angle with an isotropic phase of the liquid crystal material of 50 degrees or less. The Examiner finds Haruyama teaches a liquid crystal material exhibiting a blue phase between two substrates. (Final Act. 2–5; Haruyama 3 Appellant presents substantive arguments addressing claims 50–60 together. (Appeal Br. 4–8.) We limit our discussion to independent claim 50 as representative of the subject matter on appeal. Appeal 2019-004678 Application 14/634,426 4 ¶¶ 23, 35, 36.) The Examiner finds Haruyama teaches alignment layers on the substrates formed of rubbed polyimide film. (Final Act. 3; Haruyama ¶ 28.) The Examiner finds Haruyama is silent with regard to the recited limitations of “where a polar component of surface free energy on a substrate surface in contact with the liquid crystal material is in the range of 5 to 20 mJm[-2],” and “wherein a contact angle in the substrate surface of the liquid crystal material in an isotropic phase is 50 degrees or less.” (Final Act. 3.) The Examiner finds Abe teaches a polyimide alignment layer for liquid crystal display devices that has a polar component of surface energy value of below 12 mJ/m2. (Final Act. 3; Abe ¶ 7.) The Examiner specifically states: Abe teaches a rubbed polyimide resin layer formed from identical diamine and tetracarboxylic dianhydride precursor components as those disclosed by the present specification, therefore, the rubbed polyimide of Abe is considered to be necessarily capable of possessing the claimed polar component surface energy and contact angle properties when in contact with the aforementioned liquid crystal material discussed above. (Final Act. 4.) Thus, the Examiner finds that both Abe and Appellant disclose forming alignment layers of polyimide resin made from tetracarboxylic dianhydrides and diamines that are substantially identical. (Final Act. 3; Spec 34–61 (disclosed diamines, 62–73 (disclosed tetracarboxylic dianhydrides); see Abe ¶ 7.) The Examiner concludes that: [s]ince Haruyama teaches a liquid crystal display device that has rubbed polyimide film alignment layers and Abe discloses rubbed polyimide alignment layers for liquid crystal displays, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have utilized Abe’s rubbed Appeal 2019-004678 Application 14/634,426 5 polyimide alignment layers in the liquid crystal display device of Haruyama to yield a device that has reduced non-uniformity, provides stability, and provides good orientation and pretilt angle as taught by Abe. (Final Act. 4–5.) Appellant argues that the teachings of Haruyama and Abe, taken individually or in combination, do not teach or suggest the claimed liquid display structure having a substrate in contact with the liquid crystal material that has a polar component of surface free energy in the range of 5 to 20 mJ/m2 and a contact angle with an isotropic phase of the liquid crystal material of 50 degrees or less. (Appeal Br. 5.) Appellant’s argument does not identify reversible error in the Examiner’s determination of obviousness. It is well settled that a chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709 (Fed Cir. 1990) (“Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.”). Cf. In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 391 (CCPA 1963) (“From the standpoint of patent law, a compound and all of its properties are inseparable; they are one and the same thing.”). Appellant does not dispute that Abe’s rubbed polyimide resin layer is formed from diamine and tetracarboxylic dianhydride precursor components that are the same as the components disclosed for the same layer in the instant Specification. (See generally Appeal Br.) Further, Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s determination that it would have been obvious to utilize the rubbed polyimide resin layer described by Abe in the liquid crystal display device of Haruyama. (Id.) Instead, Appellant contends that neither of the cited references discloses the claimed surface free energy and contact angle properties for the alignment layers. (Appeal Br. 5.) Appeal 2019-004678 Application 14/634,426 6 As the Examiner finds, there is a reasonable basis for one skilled in the art to reasonably expect that the prior art composition of the alignment layer is the same or substantially the same to the composition of the claimed alignment layer and that the prior art composition possesses the same properties as the claimed composition. Final Act 3. Thus, when a claimed product reasonably appears to be substantially the same as a product disclosed by the prior art, the burden is on the applicant to prove that the prior art product does not necessarily or inherently possess characteristics attributed to the claimed product. Spada, 911 F.2d at 708; In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977). Appellant has not adequately explained why one skilled in the art would have found Abe’s polymide alignment layers to be unsuitable for use in Haruyama’s liquid crystal display element given that Abe discloses its use results in a liquid crystal display element with improved performance. Abe ¶ 24. Further, Appellant has not directed us to any objective evidence showing that Abe’s alignment layers do not possess the characteristics or properties of the claimed alignment layers. For the reasons we state above and the Examiner presents, we sustain the prior art rejections of claims 50–60 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Arguments not specifically addressed are deemed not persuasive for the reasons the Examiner presents. Appeal 2019-004678 Application 14/634,426 7 CONCLUSION In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 50–56 103(a) Haruyama, Abe 50–56 57, 60 103(a) Haruyama, Abe, Kikuchi 57, 60 58, 59 103(a) Haruyama, Abe, Cao 58, 59 Overall Outcome 50–60 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136. AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation