Appeal No. 1997-2937 Application No. 08/420,562 The examiner states that [a]ppellants have not shown all elpasolites, which have the claimed formula and where M is3+ any trivalent ion and D is any dopant, will act as either a prompt or a photostimulable phosphor; nor that the elpasolites will function in the claimed methods of using of claims 1 and 11. [Answer, paragraph bridging pages 3-4]. The examiner finds that appellants have only exemplified one composition as being a phosphor and also finds that the phosphor art is “unpredictable.” (Answer, page 4). From these findings, the examiner concludes that “the claims fail to satisfy the requirements of 35 USC 112.” (Id.). We determine that the examiner has not provided sufficient and convincing reasons for doubting the assertions in the specification. The examiner refers to the “art cited” and a “few references” which show doped elpasolites with an activation wavelength outside the X-ray wavelength range but none of this evidence is presented in the Answer (Answer, page 5). The examiner states that unpredictability of a particular art area alone may provide a reasonable doubt as to the accuracy of a broad statement made in support of a broad claim (id.). On the facts of this case, we disagree. “[T]o be 6Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007