Interference No. 103,995 Paper 29
Morel v. Sekhar Page 22
Moreover, there is no indication that the Examiner ever questioned the criticality of the 1:1
to 9:1 range (see also, p. 8 above). Finally, to the extent Morel may be relying on the
Laurent Declaration (MAEx 1), it is insufficient to establish the criticality of the claimed 1:1
to 9:1 weight range for the reasons set forth above.
Therefore, for the above reasons, Morel has not sustained its burden of showing
unexpected results sufficient to overcome the prima facie case of obvious of Morel claims
2 and 5 over Sekhar ‘513 (SDEx 3).
3. Are the coatings obtained using the compositions of Morel
claims 2 and 5 materially different from the coatings obtained
by Sekhar ‘513
Morel still further argues that the coatings of Morel and Sekhar ‘513 are
fundamentally different, i.e.,
the coating of Sekhar ‘513 is formed by sintering (column 2, lines 3-6) and is
non-glassy (column 11, line 23). To the contrary, the coating of Morel is a
vitreous (glassy) coating (column 2, lines 34-46). [Paper 20, pp. 4-5.]
Sekhar replies that column 6, lines 50-59 and column 7, lines 1-8 of Sekhar ‘513
describes production of “an impervious silica skin (in an oxidizing atmosphere), i.e., a
vitreous/glassy/amorphous phase” (Paper 25, p. 4).
44. Sekhar ‘513 describes that
The coating advantageously contains at least one silicon-containing
compound, which may be included as a reactant and/or as a non-reactant,
advantageously in a substantial amount, usually accounting for 30 wt % or
more of the coating, advantageously 50 wt % or more. Silicon compounds
when reacted or sintered form on the body a relatively impervious silica skin,
providing excellent resistance against oxidation and corrosion. Formation of
such a silicious skin can be enhanced by including colloidal silica in the
carrier. [SDEx 3, c. 6, ll. 50-59.]
* * * * * *
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007