Appeal No. 95-4109
Application No. 08/127,640
Walls 4,381,340 Apr. 26,
1983
Tanka et al. (Tanka) 4,820,621 Apr. 11,
1989
Kato et al. (Kato) 4,914,006 Apr. 3,
1990
Japanese reference (Tanaka) 4-204454 Jun. 24,
1992
Claims 1 through 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over: Tanka in view of Walls (4,381) or
Walls (4,308); Kato in view of Walls (4,381) or Walls (4,308);
and the Japanese reference in view of Walls (4,381) or Walls
(4,308) or Walls (3,954).
None of these rejections can be sustained. As correctly
indicated by the appellants in their Brief, even if the
applied prior art were combined in the manner proposed by the
examiner, the resulting developer solution would contain a
minimum ammonium salt concentration of about 1% (e.g., see the
first full paragraph in column 5 of Walls (4,381)) which is
far in excess of the maximum 0.20% concentration defined by
the independent claim on appeal. In this regard, it is
appropriate to emphasize that neither the Answer nor
Supplemental Answer contains any discussion at all as to why
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007