Appeal No. 1997-1834 Page 8
Application No. 08/267,527
compounds of Pollet in the silver halide material of Dickerson. The conclusion does not follow the
premise. In fact, quite the contrary. It would seem that such wide spread use would be an indication
that the thioether accelerators would be useful in a wide range of silver halide materials and that one of
ordinary skill in the art would add a thioether accelerator to whatever silver halide material needed
accelerating. We note that Dickerson indicates that increased speed and more rapid developability is a
desirable advantage in the radiographic element of that patent. See column 1, lines 31-46 of
Dickerson.
Appellants observe that Dickerson describes using other compounds to reduce stain and thus
the way in which Dickerson describes obtaining low residual stain levels differs from that in the present
case (Brief, page 9). Appellants go on to state that it would not be expected that the polyoxyethylene
compounds of Pollet would give rise to lower residual staining after processing. The fact that Pollet
does not suggest using the polyoxyethylene compound to lower residual staining does not negate the
expressly described use as an accelerator and activator. The suggestion, reason or motivation to
combine described in the prior art reference need not be the same as that of Appellants to establish
obviousness. In re Kemps, 97 F.3d 1427, 1430, 40 USPQ2d 1309, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
To the extent that Appellants are arguing that unexpected results are obtained, we agree with
the Examiner that the showing is not commensurate in scope with the claims. See the Answer at page
9.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007