MOREL V. SEKHAR et al. - Page 16



               Interference No. 103,995                                                              Paper 29                        
               Morel v. Sekhar                                                               Page 16                                 

                       39.  Table I in Sekhar ‘513 describes elemental zirconium and elemental boron                                 
               reacting to form zirconium diboride (SDEx 3, c. 5, l. 30).                                                            
                       40.  Table V in Sekhar ‘513 describes examples of micropyretic slurries, including                            
               slurries containing zirconium, i.e., samples 5 and 12.  Sample 5 contains 10 g powder/ 6ml                            
               carrier.  The carrier is 100 vol % colloidal silica and the powder is 50 wt% SiC, 5 wt% ZrB ,                         
                                                                                                                      2              
               2 wt% Y O , 20 wt% Ti, and 23 wt% Ni.  Sample 12 contains 10 g powder/  5 ml carrier.                                 
                         2  3                                                                                                        
               The carrier is 100 vol % mono-aluminum phosphate and the powder is 90 wt% SiC, 4 wt%                                  

               Zr, 2.5 wt% Y O , 2.5 wt% Al O  and2  3            2  3                                                                                 
               1 wt% B.  (SDEx 3, cc. 9-10, TABLE V, samples 5 and 12).                                                              
                       41.  Example V in Sekhar ‘513 describes a slurry containing 25 g TiB , 10 g Ti and                            
                                                                                                       2                             
               5 g B in 15 ml colloidal alumina (SDEx 3, c. 10, ll. 50-53).                                                          
                       Morel has already conceded that Morel claims 1, 3, 4, 6 and 9 are anticipated by                              
               Sekhar ‘513 (SDEx 3) (fact 34, p. 14 above).  Morel argues that Morel claim 5 is not                                  
               anticipated by Sekhar ‘513 because it depends on Morel claim 2 which is not alleged to                                
               be anticipated by Sekhar ‘513 (Paper 20, p. 2).                                                                       
                       Initially, we note that the various captions used by Sekhar in Sekhar preliminary                             
               motion 1 raise some confusion as to whether or not Sekhar intended to argue that Morel                                
                                                                      3                                                              
               claim 2 is anticipated by Sekhar ‘513 (SDEx 3).   However, Sekhar does not address                                    


                       3Sekhar preliminary motion 1 alleges that                                                                     
                       (i)  “Claims 1, 3-6, 9 of the Morel Patent Are Unpatentable Under the Provisions of 35 U.S.C.                 
               § 102 Over Sekhar et al., U.S. Patent No. 5,364,513" (Paper 17, TABLE OF CONTENTS).                                   
                       (ii)  “Further, claims 1, 3-5 and 9 of Morel are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or, in the                 
               alternative, obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Sekhar et al., U.S. Patent No. 5,364,513 (Sekhar et al.               
               ‘513)” (Paper 17, p. 1).                                                                                              
                       (iii)  “Specifically, the parties Sekhar et al. request the following precise relief from the Board of        





Page:  Previous  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007