MOREL V. SEKHAR et al. - Page 32



               Interference No. 103,995                                                              Paper 29                        
               Morel v. Sekhar                                                               Page 32                                 

                       identical rejection of the product claims in the parent application of the                                    
                       present application, Serial Number 07/898,052 now USP 5,364,513.                                              
                       Perhaps most importantly, the coating of Sara USP 4,559,270 is a glassy                                       
                       coating, whereas the coating of the present application is not.  In accordance                                
                       therewith, all the remaining claims [i.e., claims 48-73] have been amended                                    
                       herein to limit the claims to a method of application to produce a non-glassy                                 
                       material.  All of the claims, as originally filed, were and still are restricted to                           
                       sintered coatings.                                                                                            
                                                              * * * * *                                                              
                       [S]intering results in materials which are crystalline and sintering does not                                 
                       involve molten materials or the cooling thereof.  Glass, on the other hand, is                                
                       clearly an amorphous material, and during its production, melting of its                                      
                       constituents and later cooling, is required.  [The ‘960 file, Paper 17, pp. 2-3,                              
                       emphasis in the original.]                                                                                    
                       66.  According to the Examiner’s Statement of Reasons for Allowance,  parent                                  
               application ‘960 was allowed in response to “AMENDMENT A” because “the limitation                                     
               ‘non-glassy coating’ in the claims [i.e., claims 48-73] distinguishes over a ‘glassy coating’                         
               as set forth in the reference (Sara)” (the ‘960 file, Paper 6, pp. 1-2).                                              


                       67.  Sekhar filed a petition under 37 CFR § 1.313(b)(5) on April 30, 1996 to                                  
               withdraw the ‘960 application from issue “in order to permit consideration of an information                          
               disclosure statement under 37 CFR § 1.97 in a new application” (the ‘960 file, Paper 13).                             
                       68.  Sekhar’s Rule 313(b)(5) was granted (the ‘960 file, Paper 15) and involved                               
               application ‘115 was filed April 30, 1996 as “continuation of application Serial No.                                  
               08/320,960, filed October 12, 1994, which is a divisional of application serial number                                
               07/898,052, filed June 12, 1992, now United States Patent 5,364,513" (the ‘115 file,                                  
               Paper 16).                                                                                                            
                       69.  A preliminary amendment was filed on April 30, 1996 in the ‘115 application                              







Page:  Previous  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007