Appeal No. 2004-2011
Application No. 09/919,239
Appellants acknowledge in the specification and Brief that
the hexacoordination metal complexes of claimed formulae (I) and
(II) are known in the art as dopants for silver halide grains in
photographic elements. This is evidenced by the patents to
Keevert and McDugle. Appellants also state that they
do not contest that the combination of such references
[Keevert and McDugle] may prima facie suggest to one of
ordinary skill to combine an additive that provided
high contrast but also decreased the speed
(sensitivity) with an additive that would increase the
speed to even out the sensitivity as suggested by the
Examiner [page 6 of Brief, second paragraph].
Appellants submit that "[t]his is in fact what has been done in
co-doped silver halide grains of the prior art as described at
page 7 of the present specification" (id.). It is appellants'
principal contention that it is the co-doping of the prior art
that results in the LIK problem addressed by appellants, and
appellants maintain that there is no teaching or suggestion in
the prior art to employ the dopants independently in separate
grain fractions of the emulsion.
Appellants' argument is not persuasive for more than one
reason. First, we agree with the examiner that Newmiller
evidences that it was known to blend emulsions of different type
and that one or both of the emulsions may be doped differently
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007