Interference No. 103,995 Paper 29
Morel v. Sekhar Page 30
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 5,364,513 (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).
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).
VI. Morel preliminary motion under 37 CFR § 1.633(a)
Morel seeks judgment pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.633(a) that
(1) Sekhar claims 77-82 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph
(original descriptive support), and
(2) Sekhar claims 77-82 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
WO 88/03519 (MDEx 1) in view of Lorkin (MDEx 2) (Paper 14).
Sekhar opposes (Paper 21); Morel replies (Paper 24).
(1) Are Sekhar claims 77-82 unpatentable under § 112, first paragraph
According to Morel (Paper 14, pp. 1-5), Sekhar claims 77-82 are unpatentable
under § 112, first paragraph, because the ‘115 application does not provide original
descriptive support for a coating composition comprising zirconium diboride and colloidal
silica.
62. Sekhar claims 77-82 were filed in the ‘115 application on April 30, 1996 in a
preliminary amendment which alleged support for these claims in an attached APPENDIX
Page: Previous 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007