Appeal 2006-3264
Application 10/685,377
The height and diameter of the pellets depend upon the size of the projectiles
whose penetration is to be prevented; the longer the projectile, the greater
the height and diameter of the pellets (Cohen ‘781, col. 6, ll. 43-59).
Middione discloses clamps for attaching armor panels to vehicle hulls
(Middione, col. 1, ll. 42-52).
The Appellant argues that Cohen does not suggest that the armored
plate may be attached to an armored vehicle chassis to cover an opening
therein (Br. 17; Reply Br. 2-3). A chassis for a manned, armored vehicle
necessarily has openings for people and materials to get in and out of the
vehicle. As with other parts of the vehicle, the opening must be protected by
an armored panel against projectiles. The armored panel must be sized to
cover the opening because if the armored panel is smaller than the opening,
the portion of the opening’s cover not protected by the armored panel will be
exposed to a strike by a projectile. As for the argument that the Cohen ‘781
panel is not adapted for attachment to a chassis, the Appellant’s claims do
not require direct attachment of the armored plate to the chassis.1 Thus, the
Appellant’s claims encompass attaching the Cohen ‘781 armored panel to
any surface, such as a door cover, that is attached to the chassis.
1 During patent prosecution, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the Specification, as the claim language would
have been read by one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the specification.
See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989);
In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
The Appellant’s Specification does not limit “attachment” to direct
attachment. The Specification merely shows holes (14, fig. 2) for “securing
said panel to an opening in said vehicle chassis” (p. 11). The direct
attachment shown in the Appellant’s figures 3 and 4 added by amendment
(filed Nov. 11, 2004) clearly is not supported by the Appellant’s original
disclosure.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013