Ex parte NUKADA et al. - Page 5


            Appeal No. 98-0140                                                      
            S.N. 08/401761                                                          

            publications.  That is, none of them pertain to X-ray                   
            diffraction of titanyl phthalocyanine crystals.  Therefore,             
            none of these publications provide insight regarding the                
            type of radiation known to have been used in the art in                 
            making X-ray diffraction measurements of titanyl                        
            phthalocyanine compounds at the time of appellants’                     
            invention.                                                              
                 Upon our review of appellants’ references listed at                
            the bottom of page 2 and at the top of page 3 of this                   
            opinion, we find that most of these references indicate use             
            of CuKa radiation in making X-ray diffraction measurements              
            of titanyl phthalocyanine crystals.2  The examiner does not             
            disagree with this assessment of these references.3 (Answer,            
            page 6).  However, the examiner asserts that these                      
            references do not show that CuKa radiation is required in               
            making X-ray diffraction measurements of titanyl                        
            phthalocyanine crystals, suggesting that therefore                      
            uncertainty exists in the manner in which appellants have               
            claimed their invention. (Answer, page 6).  We disagree                 
            with the examiner’s position taken here for the reasons                 
            expressed later in this opinion.                                        


                                                                                    
            2  Appellants’ references numbered 1-8 listed on page 2 of this opinion 
            support use of CuKa radiation in making X-ray diffraction measurements  
            of titanyl phthalocyanine crystals.  However, references numbered 9 and 
            10 listed on page 3 of this opinion do not support such use.            
            Specifically, the Stout reference does not disclose making X-ray        
            diffraction measurements specifically of titanyl phthalocyanine         
            crystals.   Also, the Sims reference specifically states Cuka radiation 
            is used for X-ray diffractograms of GaPc-Cl films, but we cannot find   
            disclosure of using Cuka radiation for titanyl phthalocyanine crystals. 
            3 We note that both the Hiller and Sims publications were newly         
            introduced by appellants on page 7 of their Brief, and the examiner did 
            not acknowledge these publications in his Answer, but we consider them  
            in this opinion for completeness sake.  The examiner did consider all   
            of the other listed references.                                         

                                         5                                          



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007