Interference No. 103,995 Paper 29
Morel v. Sekhar Page 17
Morel claim 2 in its argued anticipation rejection set forth on pp. 18-21 of Sekhar
Preliminary Motion 1 (Paper 17). Moreover, in its argued obviousness rejection over
Sekhar ‘513 (SDEx 3) set forth on p. 23 of Sekhar Preliminary Motion 1 (Paper 17),
Sekhar states “Claim 2 of Morel recites a composition comprising zirconium diboride and
colloidal silica in a weight ratio of between 1:1 and 9:1. However, such an ingredient
weight ratio is easily determined by routine experimentation...” . Therefore, Sekhar
apparently did not intend to argue that Morel claim 2 was anticipated by Sekhar ‘513
(SDEx 3).
Regardless, Morel claim 5, by virtue of its dependence on Morel claim 2, requires a
coating composition containing zirconium diboride and colloidal silica in a weight ratio
between 1:1 and 9:1. Since we do not find, and Sekhar has not pointed us to, where
Sekhar ‘513 (SDEx 3) describes a coating composition containing zirconium diboride and
colloidal silica in a weight ratio between 1:1 and 9:1, Morel claim 5 is not anticipated by
Sekhar ‘513 (SDEx 3).
B. Are Morel claims 2 and 5 unpatentable for obviousness over Sekhar
‘513
1. Is there a prima facie case of obviousness
Patent Appeals and Interferences:
A. that claims 1-6 and 9 of the Morel Patent be held unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e)...” (Paper 17, p. 1).
(iv) “C. 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, p. 18).
(v) “1. Claims 1, 3-5 of Morel Are Anticipated by Sekhar et al. ‘513" (Paper 17, p. 18).
(vi) “As Sekhar et al. ‘513 exemplify a coating composition comprising ZrB and a colloidal silica
2
carrier, Sekhar et al. ‘513 anticipates claims 1, 3-5 of Morel” (Paper 17, p. 20).
There is no mention of Morel claim 2.
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007