Appeal No. 1999-2562
Serial No. 08/795,885
Appellants request states that the teaching of Craver
teaches away from appellant’s presently claimed invention.
(Request, page 1). Appellant argues that the cumulative teaching
of Craver to one of ordinary skill in the art is to avoid using
the two polyphosphonic acids listed in Table IV in fixing
solutions “as well as any other processing solution”. Appellant
also states that Craver discourages one of ordinary skill in the
art “from using polyphosphonic acids for any reasons, let alone
substituting them for the more common polyphosphonic acids in
processing solutions . . . even if they appear to have some
ability to complex with ferrous and ferric ions” (Request,
page 2).
We disagree with appellant’s interpretation of Craver as
described above. Specifically, Craver does not indicate that the
two polyphosphonic acids listed in Table IV should be avoided for
use in a bleaching solution. Moreover, Craver does not teach to
avoid using polyphosphonic acids for any reason, as alleged by
appellant. We find no teaching in Craver to support appellant’s
aforementioned broad conclusionary statements.
Therefore, we do not find in the Request, any argument
convincing us of error in the conclusions we reached in our
decision.
Gazette Patent and Trademark Office, 63, 122 (October 21, 1997).
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007