Appeal No. 1997-3729 12
Application No. 08/362,107
closest prior art. Accordingly Table IV of the specification to that extent fails to compare
the present invention with the closest prior art of record, i.e., a photographic emulsion
having antifoggants present therein. See In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 392,
21 USPQ2d 1281, 1285 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2D 699, 705, 222
USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984). As to the balance of the comparison, we find that only
a single Example falls within the scope of the claimed subject matter, i.e., D. That example
utilizes a single combination of a thiosulfonate and a sulfinate compound. The prior art
suggests using these compounds together with core-shell grains in photographic emulsions. In
comparison the claimed subject matter is directed to a generic class of thiosulfonate
compounds in combination with a generic class of sulfinate compounds. In addition, the
emulsions of Table IV are each directed to tetradecahedral morphology. The subject matter
of claim 1 contains no such limitation. Furthermore, the claimed subject matter is not
limited to any given proportions of compounds I and II. In addition, we find that the single
proportion of 0.3 M % iodide is not reflective of the scope of proportions of the claimed
subject matter directed to 0.05 to 1 mole percent iodide. Based upon the limited showing,
we conclude that a single example directed to one given amount of one set of antifogging
compounds selected from Formula I and II under a specific set of condition, fails to reflect
the scope of the claimed subject matter. Based upon the above analysis, we conclude that
the evidence of record is not commensurate in scope with the claimed subject matter.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007