Interference No. 103,995 Paper 29
Morel v. Sekhar Page 19
colloidal silica of 1:1 to 9:1 has not been shown to be inconsistent with the 25 g diboride/
15 ml colloidal carrier of Example 5 in Sekhar ‘513 (fact 41, p. 16 above). Therefore,
Morel claims 2 and 5 are prima facie obvious over Sekhar ‘513 (SDEx 3).
2. If so, has Morel shown unexpected results as to claims 2 and 5
Morel further argues that the showing of unexpected results provided by the ‘084
patent with respect to the Sekhar ‘476 patent (SDEx 2) also applies to the Sekhar ‘513
patent (Paper 20, p. 5).
Morel relies on the comparison of the oxidation rates of zirconium diboride and
titanium diboride in the presence and absence of colloidal silica and on Example 1 in the
‘084 patent (Paper 20, pp. 5-6).
42. The ‘084 patent describes (c. 3, ll. 4-15)
[t]he skilled man ... [as]... immediately reject[ing] zirconium diboride since, as
shown in Table 1, zirconium diboride oxidises even more easily than titanium
o
diboride in air at a temperature of 1200 C.
_________________________TABLE 1__________________________
Conversion rate of borides to oxides
o o o
800 C 1000 C 1200 C
ZrB 35% 59% 65%
2
TiB 40% 58% 61%
2
Table 1 shows that titanium diboride oxidizes more easily than zirconium diboride
o o o
at 800 C and 1000 C and zirconium diboride oxidizing more easily at 1200 C. It is not
enough for Morel to show that the results are different. Morel must show that the
differences are unexpected. In re Freeman, 474 F.2d 1318, 1324, 177 USPQ 139, 143
(CCPA 1973) (the burden of showing unexpected results rests on appellants who rely on
them); In re D’Ancicco, 439 F.2d 1244, 1248, 169 USPQ 303, 306 (CCPA 1971) (the
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007