13498327 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 29, 2018)

Ex Parte Hattori et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 29, 2018

13498327 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 29, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/498,327 03/27/2012 31561 JCIPRNET 7590 P.O. Box 600 Taipei Guting Taipei City, 10099 TAIWAN 07/03/2018 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR N orikatsu Hattori 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. 35446-US- l 002-PCT 6442 EXAMINER MALLOY, ANNA E ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1722 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07 /03/2018 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): USA@JCIPGROUP.COM Belinda@JCIPGROUP.COM PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte NORIKA TSU HATTORI, SHUICHI GOTO, and EIJI OKABE Appeal2017-010191 Application 13/498,327 Technology Center 1700 Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, JEFFREY R. SNAY, and JENNIFER R. GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judges. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 Appellants2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 4, 8, 9, 15-17, and 22-27. We have jurisdiction. 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We affirm. 1 We cite the Specification ("Spec.") filed March 27, 2012; Final Office Action ("Final Act.") dated December 29, 2016; Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.") dated March 24, 2017; Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") dated June 2, 2017, and Appellants' Reply Brief ("Reply Br.") dated July 27, 2017. 2 Appellants identify the named inventors and JNC Corporation as the real parties in interest. App. Br. 1. Appeal2017-010191 Application 13/498,327 BACKGROUND The subject matter on appeal relates to liquid crystal compositions having a negative dielectric anisotropy. Spec. i-f 1. Claim I-the sole independent claim on appeal-is representative: 1. A liquid crystal composition that has a negative dielectric anisotropy and contains at least one compound represented by formula ( 1) as a first component, at least one compound represented by formula (2) as a second component, and further contains at least one compound represented by formula ( 4-1-3- 1) and formula ( 4-1-5-1 ), and a ratio of the first component is in the range of 10% by weight to 60% by weight, and a ratio of the second component is in the range of 20% by weight to 70% by weight based on the total weight of the liquid crystal composition: fl) (2) wherein R1, R2, R3 and R4 are independently alkyl having 1 to 12 carbons, alkoxy having 1 to 12 carbons, alkenyloxy having 2 to 12 carbons or alkenyl having 2 to 12 carbons, or alkenyl having 2 to 12 carbons in which at least one hydrogen is replaced by fluorine, R9 is alkenyl having 2 to 12 carbons, or alkenyl having 2 to 12 carbons in which at least one hydrogen is replaced by fluorine, R10 is alkyl having 1 to 12 carbons, 2 Appeal2017-010191 Application 13/498,327 alkoxy having 1 to 12 carbons or alkenyl having 2 to 12 carbons, or alkenyl having 2 to 12 carbons in which at least one hydrogen is replaced by fluorine; ring A is independently ()'" .. "'\ Â·' Â·,, ,/"'"';;.:."-'\ ,/ \ Â·" \,, 'Â· _;.......... . ........ z , .. , ....... " Â·~\ ..... ::;.:>' ,, , or X 1 is fluorine; X2 and X3 are hydrogen; Z1 is independently a single bond, ethylene, methyleneoxy or carbonyloxy; m is 1, 2 or 3; at least one of ring A is f)~ l{ ... '~, ----< ~-. - " . ...- \~ ......... Jl in formula (2). App. Br. 14--15 (Claims Appendix). REJECTIONS I. Claims 1, 4, 8, 9, 15-17, and 22-27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Saito. 3 II. Claims 1, 4, 8, 9, 15-17, and 22-27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as unpatentable over Hattori 4 and Yanai. 5 3 JP 2008-285570 A, published November 27, 2008 ("Saito"), as translated. 4 US 2008/0303001 Al, published December 11, 2008 ("Hattori"). 5 US 2007/0221882 Al, published September 27, 2007 ("Yanai"). 3 Appeal2017-010191 Application 13/498,327 OPINION Appellants limit their arguments to claim 1. App. Br. 5 ("Independent claim 1 may be taken as a representative for the issue on appeal."). Rejection I The Examiner finds that Saito discloses a liquid crystal composition containing at least four compounds which are encompassed by the chemical structures identified by Saito as Formulae 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. Ans. 17 (citing Saito i-fi-f 15, 23). The Examiner further finds that Saito identifies specific compounds within the above-mentioned formulae that meet or approximate the compounds identified by formulae 1, 2, 4-1-3-1, and 4-1-5-1 recited in claim 1. Final Act. 2--4. Specifically, the Examiner finds that Saito discloses 3-DhB(2F,3F)-02 as a suitable compound that meets Saito's formula 1, 2-BBB(2F)-3 as a suitable compound that meets Saito's formula 4, and a combination of 3-HHB(2F,3F)-02 and V- HBB(2F,3F)-02, each of which meets Saito's formula 2. Id. (citing Saito Examples 3, 4). In light of the foregoing disclosures, the Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason to include 3- DhB(2F,3F)-02; 2-BBB(2F)-3; 3-HHB(2F,3F)-02; and V-HBB(2F,3F)-02 in a liquid crystal composition. Id. Appellants do not dispute that Saito's compounds 2-BBB(2F)-3; 3- DhB(2F,3F)-02; and V-HBB(2F,3F)-02 are encompassed by formulae 1, 2, and 4-1-5-1 in claim 1. Appellants argue, however, that Saito's 3- HHB(2F,3F)-02 differs from formula 4-1-3-1 in that it includes an alkyl terminal group rather that an alkenyl. App. Br. 5-8. Appellants argue that 4 Appeal2017-010191 Application 13/498,327 the Examiner's reasoning for changing Saito's terminal group from alkyl to alkenyl involves impermissible hindsight. Id.; Reply Br. 4--5. We disagree. As the Examiner points out, Saito expressly teaches that the left terminal group of the formula to which 3-HHB(2F,3F)-02 may be alkyl or alkenyl, and that alkenyl groups advantageously lower viscosity. Ans. 17 (citing Saito i-fi-145, 52). As such, we are persuaded that the Examiner's finding of a reason to substitute alkenyl for alkyl as the left terminal group in Saito's 3-HHB(2F,3F)-02 compound is supported by a preponderance of evidence. For the foregoing reasons, Appellants' argument does not reveal reversible error in connection with the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 over Saito. Accordingly, Rejection I is sustained. Rejection II With regard to Rejection II, the Examiner finds that Hattori discloses a liquid crystal composition which includes compounds meeting each of formulae 2, 4-1-3-1, and 4-1-5-1 recited in claim 1, but lacks a compound meeting Appellants' formula 1. Final Act. 5---6. The Examiner further finds that Yanai discloses liquid crystal compositions, and teaches that including 2-BBB(2F)-3 and 2-BBB(2F)-5, each of which satisfies Appellants' recited formula 1, advantageously expands the range of useable temperatures, decreases viscosity, and controls optical anisotropy to a suitable value. Id. at 7 (citing Yanai i1 3 5). Thus, the Examiner finds that one skilled in the art would have had a reason to include 2-BBB(2F)-3 and 2-BBB(2F)-5 in Hattori's composition. Id. 5 Appeal2017-010191 Application 13/498,327 Appellants urge that the Examiner employed impermissible hindsight. App. Br. 9-11; Reply Br. 1-2. First, Appellants contend that "there are countless compounds in the world that would render the effects of increasing the maximum temperature, decreasing the minimum temperature, and decreasing the viscosity." App. Br. 9. Second, Appellants argue that Yanai' s general formula 1 encompasses a broad range of compounds. Id. at 10-11. However, Appellants do not explain or otherwise persuade us that the existence of other compounds which might provide the same advantageous properties negates Yanai' s express teaching of 2-BBB(2F)-3 and 2-BBB(2F)-5 as suitable compounds. Appellants' argument that Yanai' s formulae encompass such other compounds is unpersuasive for the same reason. Appellants' argument does not reveal reversible error in connection with the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 over Hattori and Yanai. Accordingly, Rejection II is sustained. DECISION The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 4, 8, 9, 15-17, and 22-27 is affirmed. 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 6