Appeal No. 1999-2529
Application 08/915,683
declaration. We find that these compared Samples differ in the sensitization of a silver bromide
core with a gold sensitizer in claimed Samples 208 (emulsion “J2” with 63.8 mg/Ag mol of
thiosulfonate “1-16”) and 209 (emulsion “J3” with 4.4 mg/Ag mol of thiosulfonate “1-16”) and
of a silver bromoiodide core with a gold sensitizer in prior art Sample 210 (emulsion “J4” with
4.4 mg/Ag mol of thiosulfonate “1-16”), as no thiosulfate compound was used in sensitization,
with claimed Sample 208 further differing from prior art Sample 210 in the amount of the
thiosulfonate employed. Appellants also compare claimed Samples 208, 209, 211 (emulsion
“J5” with silver bromide core and 4.4 mg/Ag mol of thiosulfonate “2-3”) and 212 (emulsion “J6”
with silver bromide core and 4.4 mg/Ag mol of thiosulfonate “3-5”) with prior art Sample 213
(emulsion “J7” with silver bromide core and 4.4 mg/Ag mol of sodium thiosulfate pentahydrate),
as well as compare prior art Sample 207 (emulsion “J1” with silver bromoiodide core and 4.4
mg/Ag mol of sodium thiosulfate pentahydrate) with prior art Sample 213 (reply brief, page 5).
It is apparent that the issue addressed by appellants’ comparison of claimed Samples 208
and 209 with prior art Sample 210 is whether one of ordinary skill in this art would have
employed a silver bromide core rather than a silver bromoiodide core in view of their argument
that Evans teaches the latter core for core/shell tabular grains. As we pointed out above, Evans
does teach that either of these cores may be used and that the silver bromide core should be
prepared in a manner to exclude iodide, while Tanemura and Shuto both teach that the presence
of silver iodide should be avoided in preparing the core. We further pointed out above that
Evans uses silver iodide in the preparation of the silver bromoiodide for the core in Emulsion A
thereof which is the same manner in which “Seed Crystal No. I1” is prepared in the declaration
(page 1).
We find from declaration Tables 3, as summarized in the table in the reply brief, that
there is a difference in Dmax, Dmin and negative sensitivity between Samples 209 (claimed) and
210 (prior art), which comparison constitute the closest comparison since the difference in the
silver halide of the core is the sole difference between these emulsions. While there is also a
difference in these properties between Samples 208 (claimed) and Sample 210, we note that
almost fifteen times more thiosulfonate compound was present when the core of Sample 208 was
sensitized. See In re Dunn, 349 F.2d 433, 439, 146 USPQ 479, 483 (CCPA 1965) (“[W]e do not
- 9 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007