Ex parte Mitzinger

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 22, 1998

08059983 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 22, 1998)

Application for patent filed May 12, 1993.1
1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today (1) was not written
for publication in a law journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 17
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte HERBERT MITZINGER
_____________
Appeal No. 95-3088
Application 08/059,9831
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before RONALD H. SMITH, WINTERS and OWENS, Administrative Patent
Judges.
RONALD H. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1 and
2, all the pending claims in the application.
The subject matter relates to a method for processing
exposed photographic reversal silver halide materials which
eliminates the washing step between first development and
reversal. Claim 1, the only independent claim, reads as follows:
Appeal No. 95-3088
Application 08/059,983
2
1. A method for processing exposed photographic
reversal silver halide materials comprising the following steps:
(a) first development, (b) reversal bath, (c) color development,
(d) conditioning, (e) bleaching, (f) fixing, (g) washing, (h)
stabilization and (i) drying, characterized in that hydroquinone
sulfonic acid is used as the first developer, and no washing
takes place between steps (a) and (b) and step (b) is carried out
in countercurrent over at least 2 stages.
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Kishimoto 4,752,556 Jun. 21, 1988
Kojima et al. (Kojima) 4,948,711 Aug. 14, 1990
Wernicke et al. (Wernicke) 5,110,715 May 5, 1992
Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 USC § 103 as unpatentable
over the known prior art E-6 process in view of Wernicke and
Kojima. Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 USC § 103 as
unpatentable over the known prior art E-6 process in view of
Wernicke and Kojima, and further in view of Kishimoto.
We have carefully considered the entire record, including
the appellant's position as set forth in the brief and the
examiner's position as set forth in the answer, and we have
decided that we will not sustain the examiner's rejection. Since
we are in substantial agreement with appellant's position as set
forth in the brief, we adopt that position as our own.
The examiner has not established a prima facie case of
Appeal No. 95-3088
Application 08/059,983
3
obviousness. As noted by appellant, Wernicke teaches that the
washing step may be eliminated without adversely affecting the
quality if (1) an N,N-dialkyl-p-phenylenediamine compound is used
as the sole developer, (2) the first development bath contains a
compound which prevents developer oxidation products from
reacting with the color couplers and (3) the silver halide layers
have a chloride content of at least 80 mole % (col. 2, lines 17-
39). We agree with appellant that Wernicke's teachings are very
specialized and cannot be combined with the other references in
any way that would suggest the claimed invention, which requires
hydroquinone sulfonic acid as the developer.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
)
RONALD H. SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
SHERMAN D. WINTERS )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
Appeal No. 95-3088
Application 08/059,983
4
TERRY J. OWENS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
CONNOLLY and HUTZ
P.O. Box 2207
Wilmington, DE 19899-2207