Appeal 2007-3363
Application 10/342,711
Takahashi and claimed in Agfa's claim 1. We find Powell to be analogous
art.
The differences between the prior art and claim 1
Hell teaches light-absorbing pigments in the support, but the sole
example (carbon black) is a light-absorbing pigment that appears to be used
as an alternative to light-reflecting pigments. (Hell ¶045.) Hell does not
teach a pigment for absorbing wavelengths greater than 600 nm to be used
with a light-reflecting pigment. Agfa argues that the use of light-absorbing
pigments was known but comes at a cost, using the example of titanium
dioxide increasing sensitivity but decreasing resolution. (Br. 6.) Hell
appreciated the costs associated with the white pigments (although Hell
actually teaches that titanium dioxide is used for high resolution). (Hell
¶045.)
Takahashi does not teach the use of alkali metal halide phosphors, but
does teach the use of any phosphor that emits light when exposed to
stimulating rays after exposure to radiation. Takahashi also uses a binder
although it counsels that binder use be minimized.
Powell also uses binders but not alkali metal halide phosphors.
The ordinary level of skill in the art
We look to the evidence of record—the applicant's disclosure, the
cited references, and any declaration testimony—in resolving the ordinary
level of skill in the art. Ex parte Jud, 2006 WL 4080053 at *2 (BPAI)
(rehearing with expanded panel). Agfa provided no testimony on appeal.
We focus on what a person having ordinary skill in the art knew and could
do.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013