Appeal No. 94-3359
Application 07/941,566
polymeric non-diffusing developers and knowing from Minsk that
the problem of stray fog or stain will be abated by the use of
said polymeric non-diffusing developers would have understood
that anchoring the developers in the emulsion layer of a black
and white photographic element would maintain the developer in
the emulsion layer where it is placed. Thus, developers so-
anchored would be prevented from being washed away by alkaline
activator solution. That the reason provided by Minsk for using
polymeric non-diffusing developers is different than appellants'
reason for using the same polymeric non-diffusing developers does
not negate the prima facie case of obviousness.
To the extent that Minsk does not disclose the
molecular weight for the polymer recited in appellants' claim 10,
we note that IBM clearly indicates that higher molecular weight
non-diffusing developers tend not to diffuse from the emulsion
layer compared with lower molecular weight developers. Thus, the
skilled artisan would have been motivated to use higher rather
than lower molecular weight polymers. Moreover, appellants have
repeatedly directed our attention to the Minsk patent in their
specification as prior art which would enable the person of
ordinary skill in the art to make and use the polymeric compounds
claimed by appellants in their invention. See, for example,
appellants specification at: page 4 line 37 through page 5 line
27
Page: Previous 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007