Appeal No. 1998-0434
Application 08/620,745
the closest prior art would be against a fixing solution which
contains gluconic acid but, as required by the appellants’
claims, does not substantially contain a boron compound. We
note that even if comparison to a fixing solution containing
gluconic acid were considered to be a comparison of the
appellants’ claimed invention with itself, a mixture of
gluconic acid with tartaric acid or citric acid, as disclosed
by Yamada (col. 10, lines 3-5) and Nishigaki (col. 15, lines
55-57), would be closer to the appellants’ claimed invention
than the tartaric acid and citric acid each used alone in the
declaration.
Second, the reliability of the test used has not been
established. There is no indication that the test used to
compare the acid components was a standard test or was
recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as being
reliable.
Third, the significance of the test results is unclear.
Watanabe states in Table A of the declaration that deposits
were generated in some tests, but, except for tests E and G,
there is no indication of the extent of these deposits, i.e.,
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007