Interference No. 103,995 Paper 29
Morel v. Sekhar Page 28
According to party Sekhar, “Sekhar et al. ‘476 teach not only coatings in which
borides are formed as part of the micropyretic process, but coating compositions which
contain pre-formed borides” (Paper 17, p. 10). Further according to party Sekhar, it would
have been obvious to replace the preformed titanium boride of Sekhar ‘476 with
preformed zirconium boride and to use colloidal silica as the carrier because Sekhar ‘476
discloses both titanium boride and zirconium boride as preferred refractory materials and
colloidal silica as a suitable carrier, thereby rendering the subject matter of Morel claim 1
obvious (Paper 17, p. 11).
Assuming the specific gravity of colloidal alumina to be 1, party Sekhar asserts that
Examples 11 and 12 of Sekhar ‘476 (SDEx 2) describe a 2.5:1 ratio of TiB to colloidal
2
alumina. Therefore, party Sekhar argues still further that Sekhar ‘476 (SDEx 2) suggests a
ZrB to colloidal silica ratio 2.5:1, thereby rendering the subject matter of Morel claim 2
2
obvious. [Paper 17, p. 11.]
Finally, party Sekhar argues that the subject matter of Morel claim 5 is obvious in
view of Sekhar ‘476 (SDEx 2) description of coatings containing carbides of silicon
(Paper 17, p. 11).
“Having conceded the unpatentability of claims 1, 3, 4, 6 and 9 ..., MOREL argues
only the patentability of claims 2 and 5” (Paper 20, p. 9), relying on “the comparative
testing in the Morel patent...as sufficient evidence of an unexpected improvement” (Paper
20, p. 10). The insufficiency of the comparative data in the ‘084 patent to establish
unexpected results has been discussed above at pages 18-21.
Morel argues that the Examiner’s Statement of Reasons for Allowance of the Morel
Page: Previous 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007