Appeal No. 95-4513
Application 08/261,667
by using the above-mentioned bath which is so adjusted in a
region which is different than the above-mentioned region in
which the image is amplified” (col. 3, lines 62-68). The
compounds which Koboshi adds to the bath to carry out this
adjustment, appellants argue, would materially affect the
basic and novel characteristics of appellants’ method
and therefore are excluded by the term “consisting essentially
of” in step (b) of appellants’ claim 1 (request, pages 1-2).
Appellants have not stated on the record what they
consider to be the basic and novel characteristics of their
method. Our decision (page 5) includes a finding as to what
the basic and novel characteristics of appellants’ claimed
method are, and in appellants’ request for rehearing, they do
not contest this finding. We remain of the view that for the
reasons given in our decision (pages 5-6), the compounds which
Koboshi adds to his bath would not materially affect the basic
and novel characteristics of appellants’ claimed method.
Appellants argue that their method has the advantage of
permitting the use of a common storage facility for hydrogen
peroxide used in the amplification solution and the bleaching
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007