Appeal No. 2001-0058 Page 5
Application No. 281,815
See, for example, Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley Corp., 837 F.2d 1044, 1052, 5 USPQ2d
1434, 1439 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 825 (1988).
Lager is directed to the solution of the same problem as the appellant, but creates
the cloud of burning matter in a different manner. Lager combines an oxidizer and a
pyrophoric material in such proportions that they will spontaneously ignite when mixed, and
dispenses the mixture from the vehicle through a nozzle. Ignition in the dispenser is
prevented by also including in the ingredients an ignition inhibitor, which delays
spontaneous ignition until the cloud is clear of the immediate vicinity of the vehicle. Using
the language of claim 1 as a guide, Lager fails to disclose or teach withdrawing fuel from
the propulsion fuel tank of the vehicle, passing gelled fuel through a plurality of openings in
an apertured plate to change it into a particulate form at a rate and pressure that will impart
momentum sufficient to project the particles away from the vehicle in a discrete cloud, and
igniting the particles in the dispenser.
Geeraert is directed in general to a flame thrower gun and in particular to a device
for mixing the ingredients for the flame. The only description provided of the configuration
of the flame that issues from the weapon is that it is a “fluid stream” (column 5, line 59).
There is nothing in the reference which would suggest that the flame is intended to be or is
capable of functioning as a countermeasure, much less that it is in the form of a “discrete
cloud,” or provides a radiation signature that is the same as that of the propulsion system
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007