Interference No. 103,995 Paper 29
Morel v. Sekhar Page 39
Morel has not pointed us to where the record equates colloidal silica (Weir) with alkali
metal silicates (Lorkin) in a coating composition or why the skilled artisan would have
combined colloidal silica and zirconium diboride as the specific matrix and filler
combination of Lorkin. Morel has not pointed us to where Lorkin discloses or suggests
colloidal matrices. Assuming arguendo that it would have been prima facie obvious to
select a boride filler from Lorkin’s list of refractory oxides, carbides, nitrides and borides,
Morel has not explained why the skilled artisan would have further selected zirconium
boride as that boride. If anything, Weir would have suggested selecting titanium boride as
the boride.
For the above reasons, Morel has failed to establish that Sekhar claims 77-82 are
unpatentable under § 103 as obvious over Weir in view of Lorkin.
Therefore, Morel motion under 37 CFR § 1.633(a) is denied.
VII. Order
All of Morel’s claims involved in the interference, i.e., Morel claims 1-6 and 9, are
unpatentable to Morel and none of Sekhar’s claims involved in the interference, i.e.,
Sekhar claims 77-82, have been shown to be unpatentable to Sekhar. Normally we would
proceed to the priority phase of the interference where each party submits evidence to
prove dates of invention. However, Morel does not intend to present priority evidence;
rather it intends to rely solely on the January 28, 1993 filing date of its earlier French
Application No. 93 01258 to prove constructive reduction to practice of the inventions of
Counts 1 and 2 (Paper 15). Similarly, Sekhar intends to rely solely on the June 11, 1992
Page: Previous 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007