Appeal No. 95-2765
Application 08/025,474
patent’s disclosure and each of its claims. In re Spence, 261
F.2d 244, 246, 120 USPQ 82, 83 (CCPA 1958). Thus, the effect of
appellants’ declaration is to invalidate method claims 13 and 14
of the Kojima patent which specifically recite the formation of
a direct-positive image by using either a developing solution
or a prebath. With respect to the experiments described in the
declaration, it must be said that in a United States patent it is
to be presumed that a process, if used by one skilled in the art,
will produce the product alleged by the patentee and such
presumption is not overcome by a mere showing that it is possible
to operate within the disclosure (e.g., by using an Eastman Kodak
film rather than a Fuji Photo film) without obtaining the desired
product. In re Michalek, 162 F.2d 229, 231-32, 74 USPQ 107, 109
(CCPA 1947). Upon review of all the evidence of record, it is
our judgment that appellants have not provided a sufficient
quantum of evidence to establish that Kojima constitutes a
nonenabling (inoperative) disclosure with respect to the process
in question or that claims 13 and 14 of Kojima are invalid.
THE REJECTION OF THE METHOD CLAIMS OVER KOJIMA
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007