Appeal No. 1998-1732
Application 08/608,321
steps be carried out such that the total projective area of
the tabular grains is at least 90%. The examiner does not
point out, and we do not find, a disclosed total projective
area in the applied references. In their specification (pages
20-21), the appellants coat a support with the photographic
tabular grain emulsion of example XVIII of EP ‘092, and
report that the total projective area of the tabular grains is
less than 50%. This example indicates that the total
projective area of the tabular grains in EP ‘092 is not
necessarily at least 90% as required by the appellants’ claim
1, and the examiner has given no reason as to why the applied
references would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to
prepare an emulsion having tabular grains with such a total
projective area.
The examiner argues that “[t]he ranges claimed by
Appellant appear to be quite broad to the Examiner and thus
are not very narrow limitations. This is especially true of
the independent claim” (answer, page 5). Merely arguing that
the limitations are not very narrow, however, is not
sufficient for carrying the burden of establishing that the
claimed invention would have been prima facie obvious to one
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007