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 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007