Appeal No. 95-2765
Application 08/025,474
type emulsions and positive-type emulsions “are distinctly
different and are used for different purposes.” See the
declaration at paragraph 6. This conclusion stands unrebutted by
the examiner. Moreover, the examiner’s statement in the Answer
bridging pages 14 and 15 that a negative-type or direct-positive
type silver halide element differs from each other in its final
image, “not the element before processing” ignores the express
language required by the method claim which is the development of
a “negative-type silver halide photographic element. It is well
settled that every limitation in a claim must be considered in
resolving the obviousness of a claimed invention as a whole
within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103. In re Geerdes, 491 F.2d
1260, 1262-63, 180 USPQ 789, 791 (CCPA 1974).
We also observe that no prior art reference has been
cited disclosing the type or types of prior art developer pre-
baths or developer baths which have been used for negative-type
silver halide photographic elements. Nor has the examiner cited
any evidence that the developer prebaths or developer baths used
for development of a direct-positive silver halide photographic
element may be used for the development of a negative type silver
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007