Appeal No. 2003-0407
Application No. 09/550,503
antihalation layers of Anderson and Brick in sound recording
film. In addition, the examiner has not established that using
the antihalation layers of Anderson or Brick in the sound
recording film of Gerlach would necessarily, or inherently,
result in a minimum density of 0.07 or less. We find that the
examiner has not adequately refuted appellants' argument that:
To obtain a sound recording film in accordance with the
invention, rather than simply add materials taught by
Anderson et al or Brick et al to the film material
taught by Gerlach et al as proposed by the examiner,
all film materials employed must be specifically chosen
so as to result in the claimed minimum density
requirements (e.g., the conventional prior art sound
recording film practice of using a gray-tinted support
or including permanently colored dyes which yield a
substantial minimum density after processing cannot be
done.
Sentence bridging pages 6 and 7 of Brief. Furthermore, the
examiner has also not refuted appellants' contention that:
The addition of further antihalation, antistatic and
overcoat layer materials found in the layers of
Anderson et al or Brick et al to the material as taught
by Gerlach et al as proposed by the examiner would if
anything be expected to increase densities above that
demonstrated in the Examples of Gerlach et al due to
light absorption of any of such added materials which
may be retained after processing.
Page 6 of Brief, first paragraph. As emphasized by appellants,
Table 3 of Gerlach reports a Dmin value of 0.24.
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007