MOREL V. SEKHAR et al. - Page 35



               Interference No. 103,995                                                              Paper 29                        
               Morel v. Sekhar                                                               Page 35                                 

                       71.  Dr. Laurent testified on behalf of party Morel that                                                      
                       I cannot find in the Sekhar [’513] patent a disclosure that a boride and                                      
                       colloidal silica should be provided in a weight ratio approaching or greater                                  
                       than 1:1.  I further believe that if such a sample were provided by Sekhar, a                                 
                       glassy phase would be formed upon heating to the temperatures disclosed                                       
                       by Sekhar, so the sample would not function according to the Sekhar                                           
                       disclosure, i.e., coating formation by sintering.  Thus a sample with a                                       
                       boride:colloidal silica weight ratio of 1:1 of greater would be non-functional                                
                       according to the Sekhar disclosure.  [MAEx 1, pp. 4-5, ¶ 13.]                                                 
                       First, Sekhar claims 77-82 are not limited to particular ranges of zirconium diboride                         
               to colloidal silica weight ratios or heating temperatures.  Second,                                                   
               vitrification is a form of sintering (see n.2 above).  Third, interpreting vitrification as a form                    
               of sintering is not inconsistent with the disclosure of the ‘115 application for the reasons                          
               given above.  Fourth, expert opinion testimony need not be credited when it does not                                  
               explain the underlying factual basis for an opinion.  Therefore, we decline to accord the                             
               Laurent Declaration any weight in determining the proper construction of Sekhar claims                                
               77-82.                                                                                                                
                       Finally, for completeness sake, we note that in its reply Morel argued that “claim 77                         
               of the Sekhar application was interpreted in the manner in which claim 1 of the Morel                                 
               patent, from which claim 77 was copied, must be interpreted” (Paper 24, p. 2).  Under the                             
               new interference rules (April 21, 1995), all application claims are to be construed in light of                       
               the associated application disclosure, regardless of whether they were copied from a                                  
               patent, just as they would be during ex parte examination.  See 37 CFR 1.633(a) (1995)                                
               (“In deciding an issue raised in a motion filed under this paragraph (a), a claim will be                             
               construed in light of the specification of the application or patent in which it appears.”);                          







Page:  Previous  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007