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
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007