MOREL V. SEKHAR et al. - Page 9



               Interference No. 103,995                                                              Paper 29                        
               Morel v. Sekhar                                                               Page 9                                  

               coated with the invention composition are said to be “undamaged” with “a loss of weight ...                           
               less than 2%” (c. 4, ll. 65-68).                                                                                      
                       26.  Example 2 of the ‘084 patent describes samples coated with a 90% zirconium                               
               diboride and 10% colloidal silica (invention) composition as having “lost [no] more than 2%                           
               by weight, and the state of the coating on the test-pieces was excellent in all cases” after                          
               thermal testing (c. 5, ll. 1-20).                                                                                     
                       27.  Example 3 of the ‘084 patent describes coating samples having different                                  
               expansion coefficients in different directions with two layers of a 45% zirconium diboride,                           
               25% colloidal silica and 30% silicon carbide (invention) composition with and without an                              
               underlayer of zinc phosphate (c. 5, ll. 21-49).  The samples without the zinc phosphate                               
               underlayer are described as having “lost 40 to 50% by weight, even though the coating                                 
               remained in excellent condition” (c. 6, ll. 1-3) because the “coating had simply come                                 
               unstuck from the substrate” (c. 6, ll. 3-5).                                                                          
                       None of the testing described in the ‘084 patent compares invention “A,” i.e., a                              
               coating composition containing zirconium diboride and colloidal silica in any amounts,                                
               including weight ratios greater than and less than 1:1 to 9:1, with invention “B,” i.e., a                            
               coating composition with a weight ratio within the range of claims 2 and 5.                                           
                       28.  The Examiner’s Statement of Reasons for Allowance of the ‘084 patent reads:                              
                               The closest prior art (US 5,310,476) suggests a large group of                                        
                       refractory materials including ZrB in combination with a group of colloidal                                   
                                                             2                                                                       
                       materials including colloidal silica.  The most preferred refractory material of                              
                       the reference is TiB .  Applicants comparative data showing that ZrB is2                                                     2                              
                       superior to TiB is sufficient to overcome any case of prima facie                                             
                                        2                                                                                            
                       obviousness that may be established in view of the broad teachings of the                                     
                       closest prior art.  [The ‘037 application file, Paper 7, p. 2, ¶ 3.]                                          






Page:  Previous  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007