Appeal No. 2001-0729
Application No. 09/013,091
that the sensitizers interact differently with tabular and cubic
grains”).
The examiner’s finding of obviousness is also based on his
conclusion that all sensitizers are equivalent. In support of
this conclusion, the examiner notes that Ohzeki lists five
specific examples of gold sensitizers. See id., page 6.
However, even if this disclosure may be construed as a teaching
that gold sulfide and chloroauric acid are equivalents as
maintained by the examiner (see id.), the examiner has failed to
establish that these gold sensitizers would be expected to
perform in an equivalent manner in Asami’s method. The examiner
again improperly places the burden on appellant by requiring that
appellant demonstrate that one of ordinary skill in the art would
not combine gold sulfide with sodium thiosulfate because gold
sulfite completely sensitizes grains and sodium thiosulfate
decreases sensitivity. See examiner’s answer, page 8.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007