Interference No. 103,995 Paper 29
Morel v. Sekhar Page 14
pp. 4-5).
Therefore, Morel preliminary motion under 37 CFR § 1.633(c)(4) is denied for
failure to satisfy the requirements of 37 CFR § 1.637(c)(4)(ii).
V. Sekhar preliminary motion 1
Sekhar seeks judgment pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.633(a) that
A. Morel claims 1, 3-5 and 9 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as
anticipated by Sekhar ‘513 (SDEx 3),
B. Morel claims 1-6 and 9 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
U.S. Patent 5,346,513 (Sekhar ‘513) (SDEx 3),
C. Morel claims 1-6 and 9 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
U.S. Patent 5,310,476 (Sekhar ‘476) (SDEx 2), and
D. Morel claims 1-6 and 9 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Sekhar ‘513 (SDEx 3) in view of Sekhar ‘476 (SDEx 2) (Paper 17).
Morel opposes (Paper 20); Sekhar replies (Paper 25).
34. Morel concedes that Morel claims 1, 3, 4, 6 and 9 are unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 102 over Sekhar ‘513 (Paper 20, p. 2).
Thus, only the patentability of Morel claims 2 and 5 remain at issue.
A. Is Morel claim 5 anticipated by Sekhar ‘513
35. Sekhar ‘513 (SDEx 3) relates to
a protective coating on a body of carbonaceous or other material which
improves the resistance of the body to oxidation, and which may also
enhance the bodies [sic] electrical conductivity and/or its electrochemical
activity [which] is applied from a colloidal slurry containing particulate
reactant or non-reactant substances, or a mixture of particulate reactant and
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007