Appeal No. 2007-0218
Application No. 10/730,143
been obvious to include two different orthobisphenol reducing agents in
combination, including a compound of formula (R-1) and a compound of
either formula (R-2) or (R-3).
Therefore, we conclude that the Examiner has set forth sufficient
motivation to combine the applied references to obtain the combination of a
silver iodide-based photothermographic material with the specific
combination of orthobisphenols recited in claim 1.
Appellant also argues that “these references do not refer to unexpected
and superior results obtained by the use of the present invention, namely
high sensitivity and excellent tone (pure black image).” (Br. 15.) In
particular, Appellant argues that the “unexpected and superior results
obtained by the use of specific orthobisphenol reducing agents in
combination as recited in the present claim 1 are explicitly shown in the
photographic performance data in Table 1 of the specification (page 229),”
specifically in Experiments 5 and 6 as compared to Experiment 4 and in
Experiments 8 and 9 as compared to Experiment 7. (Br. 15-16.)
We find Experiments 4-96 insufficient to rebut the Examiner’s prima
facie case that claim 1 would have been obvious. Experiments 5 and 6
contain orthobisphenols corresponding to Formulas (R-1) and (R-3), and
Formulas (R-1) and (R-2), respectively. Experiment 4 contains only a
6 With regard to the comparison between Experiment 7 and Experiments 8
and 9, in addition to containing only one reducing agent, Experiment 7
differs from Experiments 8 and 9 in that the composition contains twice as
much of the polyhalogen compounds (Specification 229). Thus, these
experiments do not show that any difference in sensitivity was because of
the reducing agents.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013