Appeal No. 1997-3485
Application No. 08/431,734
Gomez within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103. We answer this
question in the negative.
As indicated by appellants (Brief, pages 13 and 14),
Gomez does not state that its antihalation layer used in a
photothermographic element employs a “thermal-dye-bleach”
solution. See Gomez in its entirety. Nor does Gomez state
that its antihalation layer suffers from any pre-bleaching
problem. Id. On this record, there simply is no evidence to
show that the stabilizers or acids described in Helland, which
are used as retardants for pre-bleaching in a bleach
containing system, are needed in the antihalation layer of the
photographic or photothermographic element described in
Gomez. Under these circumstances, we are constrained to2
agree with appellants that one of ordinary skill in the art
would not have been led to employ the claimed amount of the
claimed acid in the antihalation layer of the photographic or
photothermographic element described in Gomez.
2The examiner relies on Habu and Ishihara only to show
that the claimed basic antistatic agent can be employed as the
antistatic agent for the photographic or photothermographic
element described in Gomez. See Answer, page 5.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007