Appeal No. 98-0140
S.N. 08/401761
titanyl phthalocyanine crystal. (Answer, page 5). The
examiner refers to the X-ray Diffraction publication for
showing that different radiation sources will provide
different d-spacing values. The examiner refers to the
Klug publication for showing that different radiation
sources can be used in the art. Finally, the examiner
refers to the Cullity publication for showing that X-rays
used in X-ray diffraction can have different wavelengths.
(Answer, page 5).
Appellants rebut and state that none of the references
relied upon by the examiner describe the type of radiation
the art employs for measuring the properties of titanyl
phthalocyanine crystals, generally or specifically.
Appellants assert that the references only list types of
radiation employed in X-ray diffraction analyses without
any criteria for selecting one over the another. (Brief,
page 9).
Appellants further argue that the skilled artisan
would know to employ CuKa radiation in making X-ray
diffraction measurements of a titanyl phthalocyanine
crystal because the art shows CuKa radiation is the
standard in making X-ray diffraction measurements of
titanyl phthalocyanine crystals. (Brief, page 3,4, and 7).
Appellants refer to the references, listed at the bottom of
page 2 and at the top of page 3 of this opinion, for this
showing. (Brief, pages 4-6). Appellants also refer to a
Rule 132 Nukada Declaration, and assert that it
demonstrates that CuKa radiation was in fact employed for
Example 1 of appellants’ specification. (Brief, page 5).
Upon our review of the publications relied upon by the
examiner, we agree with appellants’ assessment of these
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007