Appeal 2007-0814
Application 10/243,417
suggest each and every claimed element. Appellants further contend that the
Examiner erred in rejecting the claims as anticipated by or obvious in view of
Crisp because Crisp fails to disclose or suggest each and every claimed element.
More specifically, Appellants contend that Schultz and Crisp do not disclose a
defense system that includes: masts located along a perimeter partially surrounding
an area of terrain occupied by a facility that extend from ground level to a height
substantially equal to an exposed portion of the facility and cables horizontally
spaced such that they restrain an aircraft (claim 1) (Br. 5-6); at least one cable
group movably coupled to adjacent masts so that the cable group may be
selectively raised and lowered (claim 12) (Br. 9); masts that may be selectively
raised and lowered (claim 15) (Br. 9); a plurality of ground-level cables forming a
grid more densely spaced than the spacing formed by the remainder of the cable
groups (claim 13) (Br. 10); masts that extend to a height above the height of the
exposed portion of the facility (claim 4) (Br. 10); cables in each group spaced
between 15 and 150 feet apart (claim 2) (Br. 11); at least one partially buried
concrete anchor disposed between an adjacent pair of support masts wherein a
plurality of the cables are fastened both to the concrete anchor and one of the
adjacent pair of masts (claim 7) (Br. 11-12); a concrete anchor shorter than the
masts and the cables fastened between the masts and concrete anchor run at an
acute angle relative to the mast (claim 8) (Br. 12).
The Examiner contends that Schultz and Crisp disclose or suggest each of
the claimed structural limitations, and are suitable for use in protecting a facility
from aerial incursion.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013