Appeal No. 1997-1834 Page 6
Application No. 08/267,527
the other error does not negate the obviousness of the error at issue. The Specification as a whole
clearly describes I.3 as an example of a compound within the scope of the polyoxyethylene structural
formula. One of ordinary skill in the art would have sought to deduce the corrections required to bring
the generic formula and examples into conformity. Appellants have convinced us that the error and its
correction would be readily ascertainable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, the claim as
amended does not lack support under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
Obviousness
In the explanation of the rejection of claims 1-4 and 6-8 for obviousness, the Examiner
correctly points out that Dickerson describes a photographic material comprising a support coated with
spectrally sensitized tabular grain silver halide emulsion layer units. At least one of the emulsion layer
units is comprised of tabular grains having a thickness of less than 0.2 micrometer. In addition, the
silver halide grains are preferably silver bromide and can be silver bromoiodide. The Examiner
acknowledges that Dickerson does not describe adding a polyoxyethylene compound to one of the
layers (Answer, page 4). The Examiner then correctly indicates that Pollet describes the use of
polyoxyethylene compounds of the same generic formula as those of the claim for accelerating
development or activating development of photographic silver halide elements. The Examiner also
explains that the polyoxyethylene compounds encompassed by the claims were well known in the art
and that it was common knowledge in the art to incorporate these polyoxyethylene compounds into
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007