Appeal No. 2006-1866
Application No. 10/639,537
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Mydlarz, and claims 19-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bell in view of Mydlarz. In
addition, claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Bell in view of Olm.
We consider first the examiner's rejection of claims 1-18
under § 102 over Bell.1 We will sustain this rejection for
essentially those reasons expressed by the examiner. Bell, like
appellants, describes a radiation-sensitive emulsion comprised
of silver halide grains that have a first dopant comprising
ruthenium and a second dopant comprising iridium in the central
portion of the silver halide grains. Also, Bell teaches that
the ruthenium-containing dopant is more preferably introduced
after at least 70 percent of the silver has been precipitated
and, in certain instances, it is desirable that the dopant be
incorporated after 90 percent of the silver has been
precipitated (see column 3, lines 56 et seq.). Also, Bell
teaches that the iridium-containing dopant is preferably
introduced after 80-98 percent of the silver has been
precipitated, and, optimally, the iridium-containing dopant may
1 We note that appellants have not separately argued any of the claims
rejected under § 102. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1-18 under § 102
over Bell stands or falls together with claim 1.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007