Appeal No. 1997-3787
Application No. 08/275,241
in the Brief. We add the following primarily for emphasis and
completeness.
Initially, we note from a review of the first Office
action dated October, 17, 1994, Paper No. 4, page 2, that the
examiner here required appellants to “elect a single disclosed
species” from those color developing agents disclosed at pages
8 through 12 of the specification. Appellants in turn elected
“compound D-1 as [set forth] on page 8 of the [instant]
specification” for prosecution on the merits. See the
appellants’ response dated November 8, 1994, Paper No. 5,
together with the second Office action dated November 28,
1994. Elected compound D-1 has the same general chemical
structure defined in the claimed formula above, except that
R , R , and R are limited to -(CH ) -OH,1 2 3 23
-(CH ) -OH and -CH , respectively. According to the examiner2 3 3
(Answer, page 4), the remaining, non-elected disclosed species
(compounds D-2 through D-44) included in the appealed claims
“have not been considered, searched or examined.”
Thus, the specific issue presented for review is whether
Haijima anticipates or would have rendered obvious claimed
compound D-1 and a photographic processing composition
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007