MOREL V. SEKHAR et al. - Page 21



               Interference No. 103,995                                                              Paper 29                        
               Morel v. Sekhar                                                               Page 21                                 

               p. 27).   Sekhar further argues that Table 1 in the ‘084 patent suggests that relative                                

               conversion rates of ZiB  and TiB  per se are temperature dependent.  Sekhar still further2          2                                                                               
               argues that Morel has not shown that a similar temperature dependence does not occur in                               
               the presence of colloidal silica, i.e., that ZiB associated with colloidal silica oxidizes more                       
                                                                 2                                                                   
                                                                             o           o                                          
               slowly than TiB associated with colloidal silica at 800  C or 1000 C.  (Paper 17, pp. 17-                             
                                 2                                                                                                   
               18).  This argument is not inconsistent with the ‘084 patent.                                                         
                       The Achilles’ heel of Morel’s position (i.e., “What is surprising here is not that                            
               colloidal silica reduces the oxidation rate of both zirconium and titanium diborides ..., but                         
               that the zirconium diboride in combination with colloidal silica is so much better than the                           
               titanium diborides” (Paper 20, p. 8)) is that a welter of variables affect the test results and                       
               Morel has provided essentially a “single-variable” comparison.  To wit, the optimal amount                            
               of colloidal silica vis-a-vis a given amount of diboride may not be the same for different                            
               diborides.  Moreover, it is unclear whether other known result-effective variables, such as                           
               coating thickness and drying rates, were held constant in the comparisons in the ‘084                                 
               patent.  Morel has the burden of explaining its data.   Secondly, when patentability is                               
               predicated upon some range or other variable, as with Morel claims 2 and 5, the movant                                
               must show that such variables are critical by establishing that the claimed values achieve                            
               unexpected results.  See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-                                   
               37 (Fed. Cir. 1990).  Morel has not pointed us to where the ‘084 patent compares a                                    
               coating composition containing zirconium diboride and colloidal silica in weight ratios                               
               outside the 1:1 and 9:1 required by Morel claims 2 and 5 to a coating composition within                              
               the required weight ratio, i.e., to anything indicating the criticality of the claimed range.                         






Page:  Previous  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007