Appeal No. 1999-2529
Application 08/915,683
1.5 µm and the average grain thickness b perpendicular to the main plane of the external shell
thereof is from not less than 0.04 µm to not more than 0.30 µm; and,
wherein the core of said core/shell grains are composed of silver bromide and are
subjected to chemical sensitization in the presence of at least one compound selected from the
group consisting of compounds represented by the following formula (A), (B) and (C) and a gold
sensitizer in combination under the condition that substantially no thiosulfate ion is present
during the chemical sensitization:
R-SO2-S-M (A)
R-SO2-S-R1 (B)
R-SO2-S-(L)m-SSO2-R2 (C)
wherein R, R1 and R2 may be the same or different and each represents an aliphatic group,
aromatic group or heterocyclic group; M represents a cation; L represents a divalent linking
group; m represents 0 or an integer of 1; the compounds of the formula (A), (B) and (C) may be
each in the form of a polymer containing, as a repeating unit, a divalent group derived from the
structures represented by the formulae (A), (B) and (C), respectively; and R, R1, R2 and L may be
optionally connected to each other to form a ring.
The appealed claims, as represented by claim 1, are drawn to an internal latent image
direct positive photographic silver halide emulsion comprising tabular, core/shell silver halide
grains having the specified physical characteristics and concentration, wherein the core is
composed of silver bromide that is chemically sensitized in the presence of at least one
thiosulfonate compound selected from the formulae (A) through (C) with a gold sensitizer in
combination, such that substantially no thiosulfate ion is present during the sensitization.
According to appellants, the claimed internal latent image direct positive photographic silver
halide emulsion “exhibits a high sensitivity and is less susceptible to the formation of re-reversed
negative image” (specification, pages 5-6).
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Evans et al. (Evans) 4,504,570 Mar. 12, 1985
Tanemura et al. (Tanemura) 5,081,009 Jan. 14, 1992
Shuto et al. (Shuto) 5,110,719 May 5, 1992
The examiner has rejected appealed claims 1 and 5 through 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Evans in view of either Tanemura or Shuto.
Appellants state in their reply brief (page 1) that they “agree with the examiner that
Claims 1 and 5-9 should all stand or fall together.” Thus, we decide this appeal based on
appealed claim 1. 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7) (1997).
- 2 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007