Appeal No. 1997-3729 5
Application No. 08/362,107
patentable over the § 103 rejection but stand or fall together with respect to the
obviousness-type double patenting rejection. The three groups of claims include Group 1
which contains claims 1, 2, 7-10, 12, 13 and 18-22. Group 2 contains claims 6 and 7.
Group 3 contains claims 11 and 23. Accordingly, we select claims 1, 6 and 11 as
representative of the rejection under §103 and claim 1 as representative of the rejections
on the grounds of obviousness-type double patenting. See 37 CFR § 1.192 (c)(7)(1996).
The Rejection under § 103
It is the appellants’ position that the primary reference to Takada is deficient in that
the “grain structure is not disclosed or suggested.” See Brief, page 5. Appellants submit
that there is no suggestion “that would lead one to the claimed grain with iodide forming
the grains being defined to exterior portions of the grain accounting for up to 15% of the
total silver while the grains contain from 0.05 to 1 mol % iodide based on total silver.” Id.
Furthermore, “nowhere is there a suggestion that iodide be restricted to the exterior 15%
of the silver halide grain.” Id. We disagree.
We find that Takada is directed to a silver halide photographic material having
improved photographic properties such as fog and sensitivity. See column 1, lines 9-11.
We find that material comprises at least one light sensitive silver halide emulsion layer
formed on a support having a silver halide phase containing silver iodide. See column 1,
lines 46-54. We find that a low fog and high sensitivity material are obtained by
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007