Appeal No. 2007-0218
Application No. 10/730,143
2. OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1, 3-5, AND 8-10
Claims 1, 3-5, and 8-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious in view of Toya 126,2 Siga,3 Matsumoto,4 Suzuki, and Yoshioka.5
The Examiner argues that Toya 126 discloses a photothermographic material
containing a photosensitive silver halide (which can be all silver iodide or a
mixture containing up to 40 mol % silver iodide), a non-photosensitive
organic silver salt, a binder, and a reducing agent that can be a bisphenol.
(Answer 3.)
The Examiner cites Siga for its disclosure that using at least 30
mole %, preferably at least 50 mole % silver iodide in the silver halide
component provides a “dry image forming material excellent enough in both
stability and sensitivity.” (Id. at 3.)
The Examiner cites Suzuki for its teaching that using “two or more
polyphenolic reducing agent[s] having alkyl group[s] at the two substitution
position[s] adjacent to the hydroxyl-substituted position of the aromatic
nucleus is effective for preventing discoloration upon exposure to light.”
(Id. at 4.) The Examiner also relies on Yoshioka for disclosing use of more
than one phenol compounds as reducing agents and teaching that “ortho-
phenol compounds are preferred because of their high heat-developability.”
(Id. at 7-8 (emphasis in original).) Finally, the Examiner argues that the
Yoshioka’s formula (1) encompasses “compounds of formula R-1, R-2 and
2 Toya et al., U.S. Patent No. 5,998,126, issued December 7, 1999.
3 Siga et al., U.S. Patent No. 4,332,889, issued June 1, 1982.
4 Matsumoto et al., U.S. Patent No. 5,958,668, issued September 28, 1999.
5 Yoshioka et al., European Patent Application No. EP 1 096 310 A2,
published May 2, 2001.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013