Appeal No. 2007-0218
Application No. 10/730,143
formula (H) . . . to provide a photothermographic material with higher
contrast.” (Answer 4-5.) The Examiner argues that it “would have been
obvious . . . to use the polyhalogen compound taught in Toya [419] in the
material obtained by the combination of [Toya 126, Siga, Matsumoto,
Suzuki, and Yoshioka] with a reasonable expectation of achieving a material
with higher image contrast.” (Answer 5.) We conclude that the Examiner
has set forth a prima facie case that claim 2 would have been obvious.
Appellant merely argues that Toyo 419 “does not cure the deficiencies
of the other references” and that therefore “[c]laim 2 should be deemed
allowable by virtue of its dependency to claim 1.” (Br. 17-18.) However,
for the reasons discussed above, we conclude that claim 1 would have been
obvious. Appellant has not rebutted the Examiner’s prima facie case that
claim 2 would have been obvious. We therefore affirm the rejection of
claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013