Appeal 2007-0814
Application 10/243,417
(c) wherein the cables of each cable group form a pattern that will
disruptively intercept any substantially horizontal flight path of an aircraft
toward the exposed portion of the facility.
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Schultz US 2,465,936 Mar. 29, 1949
Crisp, Sr. US 4,979,817 Dec. 25, 1990
The following rejections are before us for review.
1. Claims 1, 3-5, 10-12, and 14-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) as
anticipated by Schultz (Answer 3).
2. Claims 1, 5-7, 10, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) as
anticipated by Crisp (Answer 3-4).
3. Claims 2 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as unpatentable over
Schultz (Answer 4 and 6).
4. Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as unpatentable over
Schultz in view of Crisp (Answer 5).
5. Claims 8 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as unpatentable over
Crisp (Answer 5-6).
ISSUES
Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims as
anticipated by or obvious in view of Schultz, because Schultz fails to disclose or
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013