Appeal 2007-0814
Application 10/243,417
The issues before us are:
(1) Whether Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in
finding Schultz discloses a defense system as recited in claims 1,
3-5, 10-12, and 14-16 and teaches or suggests the defense system
recited in claims 2 and 13.
(2) Whether Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in
finding Crisp discloses a defense system as recited in claims 1, 5-
7, 10, and 16 and teaches or suggests the defense system recited in
claims 8 and 9.
(3) Whether Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in
finding that Schultz and Crisp, when combined, would have led
one having ordinary skill in the art to the combination of claim 6.
FINDINGS OF FACT
We find the following facts by a preponderance of the evidence:
1. Schultz discloses a shock absorbing device for decelerating both small
and large objects which may be moving at relatively high velocities
(Schultz, col. 1, ll. 1-3).
2. Schultz’s shock absorbing device is generally composed of a plurality of
horizontal and vertical plies which are supported by posts (Schultz,
col. 2, ll. 35-40).
3. The plies may be securely attached to each post or alternate posts
depending upon the distance between the posts, the diameter of the plies,
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013