Interference No. 103,830
are stationary disabling devices. Contact wires 34 and 36 are supported in vertical positions in
the road either by a mounting plate 30 (Figs. 2 and 3; Spec. at 9, lines 18-23; Spec. at 11, lines
8-11) or by the road itself, presumably by holes therein (Fig. 4; Spec. at 11, lines 16-23). It
seems reasonable to me to consider the mounting plate or the holes in the road to constitute
"positioning means for placing" the wires under the pursued vehicle, because in my view this
language, when construed in light of only Hutmacher's disclosure, does not imply that the
positioning means moves the vehicle disabling device relative to the road, as held by my
colleagues.
I do not reach the question of whether the "vehicle disabling device" which is placed by
the positioning means must include more than just Hutmacher's above-mentioned wires, as
apparently argued in Pacholok's motion (Paper No. 14, para. VII). Specifically, the motion
argues that whereas claim 23 recites means for placing, under a pursued vehicle, a disabling
device comprising a platform supporting a disabling circuit which includes an electromagnetic
pulse generator, Hutmacher discloses "plac[ing] the disabling circuit either on the ground away
from the contacts which engage the pursued vehicle or within the confines of a pursuing
vehicle." Hutmacher's opposition (Paper No. 21, at 15) characterizes this argument as meaning
that the "positioning means" in claim 23 positions the entire disabling circuit under the pursued
vehicle. However, claim 23 was not interpreted in this way by the Administrative Patent Judge
in support of his decision granting the motion (Paper No. 36, at 4) and is not interpreted in this
- 15 -
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007