Appeal No. 2005-0532
Application No. 10/152,877 Page 4
Appellant, on the other hand, does not agree that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the examiner’s
proposed modification of Yutzy based on the applied references’
teachings so as to result in the claimed product. In this
regard, appellant essentially maintains that, even if a mordant
were added to the receiving layer of Yutzy as the examiner
proposes, the examiner’s proposed modification of Yutzy would
have resulted in a photographic element having a support with two
image sides, not a support with a non-image side coated with a
mordant, as appellant’s claim. In this regard, we note that
appellant maintains that Yutzy’s receiving layer coated side of
the support is not a non-image side, as here claimed, because
reactive materials for forming an image are part of the receiving
layer of Yutzy.
The examiner opposes that viewpoint by asserting that
(answer, page 5):
Yutzy et al. discloses materials comprising opaque
supports with silver halide emulsion layers on one side
of the support and receiving layers on the other side
of the support. If the materials in Yutzy et al. are
processed in the same manner as disclosed in
appellant’s specification, i.e., without rolling, then
the receiving layers on the back of the supports in
Yutzy et al. would not function as dye image receiving
layers but rather as scavenger layers for dyes in
processing solutions as in the processes disclosed in
appellant’s specification.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007