Appeal No. 1999-2529
Application 08/915,683
thiosulfate sensitizer compound in the latter as all have the silver bromide core, with the Dmax,
Dmin and negative sensitivity results shown in declaration Table 3 (reply brief, page 5). In this
comparison, the core of each sample is silver bromide and the difference is the presence of a
thiosulfonate or a thiosulfate when sensitizing the core with a gold sensitizer, although Sample
208 employs almost fifteen times as much of the sulfur compound as the other compared
samples. In view of the same silver bromide core, the same gold sensitizer, the presence and
absence of the thiosulfate compound, and the presence and absence of the thiosulfonate
compound, this comparison would provide a closer comparison vis-à-vis the applied prior art
than that involving Samples 208, 209 and 210. However, in the absence of an explanation of the
practical significance of the difference in results with respect to the teachings of Tanemura and
Shuto, we must agree with the examiner that the difference in Dmax and Dmin and negative
sensitivity would appear to reflect the teachings of the references that the properties of high
contrast direct positive image having a low Dmin and a high Dmax would be improved with the
addition of the thiosulfonate compounds, and thus would appear to be the expected result
(answer, pages 6-7). We do not find that appellants’ statement in the reply brief that the claimed
Samples “exhibited significantly reduced negative image formation as compared with” Sample
13 (page 5) or the unconnected statements with respect to these Samples by declarant Matsunaga
(declaration, pages 6-7) constitute such an explanation or evidence. See Lindner, supra.
We further determine that appellants’ statement that there was no difference in result
between prior art Sample 207, which contains a silver bromoiodide core, and prior art Sample
213, which contains a silver bromide core, when sensitized with sodium thiosulfate pentahydrate
(reply brief, page 5; see also declaration, page 6) does no more than demonstrate the teachings in
Evans that both of these cores may be used in preparing the core/shell tabular grains thereof
(reply brief, page 5).
Even if one or more of the comparisons advanced by appellants is/are found to establish
unexpected results, the same is not commensurate in scope with the innumerable internal latent
image direct positive photographic silver halide emulsions encompassed by appealed claim 1 and
the extensive number of internal latent image direct positive photographic silver halide emulsions
within the teachings of the applied references. Indeed, in view of the extensive number of
- 11 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007