Interference No. 103,995 Paper 29
Morel v. Sekhar Page 8
According to Morel, coating compositions falling within what is said to be the
preferred weight ratio ranges of claims 2 and 5 have “unique properties” (Paper 12, p. 3).
Morel relies on test results of compositions within the ranges of claims 2 and 5 reported in
the ‘084 patent, test results which allegedly were a “material factor” in the Examiner
allowing the ‘037 application (Paper 12, p. 3, ¶ 3). Morel argues that “evidence could be
presented” to show the patentability of Morel claims 2 and 5 if Morel claim 1 was found to
be unpatentable (Paper 12, p. 3, ¶ 6, emphasis added). Finally, Morel directs our attention
to paragraph 8 of the Declaration Veronique Lambert [sic, Laurent] where it is stated that
vitrification produces materially different coatings if the weight ratio of zirconium diboride
to colloidal silica is greater than 1:1 or less than 1:1 (Paper 12, p. 4, ¶ 7).
23. The ‘084 patent describes “[c]olloidal silica...[as] the only substance which
limits oxidation of zirconium diboride” thereby providing a coating with a “much better
protective power than prior-art coatings” (c. 3, ll. 44-48).
24. The ‘084 patent describes weight ratios of zirconium diboride to colloidal silica
of between 1 and 9 as “preferred” (c. 2, ll. 6-11).
25. Example 1 of the ‘084 patent describes a comparison of the protective effect of
samples coated with either a 45% zirconium diboride, 25% colloidal silica and 30% silicon
carbide (invention) composition or a 45% titanium diboride, 25% colloidal silica and 30%
silicon carbide (prior art) composition (c. 4, ll. 29-68). Samples said to have been
thermally tested and coated with the prior art composition are described as “damaged”
with a “weight loss varying from 30 to 40%” (c. 4, ll. 62-65), while the five
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007