Appeal No. 95-3624
Application No. 08/150,465
(dry) system) and leave a stain during the processing. See
Answer, pages 3
and 4. To remedy these deficiencies, the examiner asserts
(Answer, pages 3 and 4) that
it has been common in the art to use the
antihaltion [sic, antihalation] dyes in both [the
wet] photographic material and [the dry]
photographic material for halation prevention and
irradiation prevention. . . .
. . . the stain found in the wet processing
which caused by the wet processing would not have
been expected to be found in the dry processing.
The problem associated with the use of the infrared
absorbent in the photothermographic material is not
the stain found after dry processing, but the color
of the dyes in the infrared absorbing layer which
causes undesirable high back ground density (Dmin).
The above assertions, however, are unsupported by or
negated by the evidence proffered by the examiner himself.
First, the very prior art relied upon by the examiner, namely
Lea, appears to contradict the examiner’s position regarding
the use of a chemical compound useful for an antihalation dye
from a wet photographic system as the antihalation dye for a
dry photographic system (silver halide photothermographic
imaging material). Specifically, the Lea reference states
(column 1, line 58 to column 2, line 11) that:
- -4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007