Appeal 2007-0814
Application 10/243,417
prior art; (2) the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue; and (3)
the level of ordinary skill in the art. In addition to our review of the Graham
factors, we also consider “whether a person of ordinary skill in the art, possessed
with the understandings and knowledge reflected in the prior art, and motivated by
the general problem facing the inventor, would have been led to make the
combination recited in the claims.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d
1329, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2006). From this it may be determined whether the overall
disclosures, teachings, and suggestions of the prior art, and the level of skill in the
art – i.e., the understandings and knowledge of persons having ordinary skill in the
art at the time of the invention-support the legal conclusion of obviousness. Id.
ANALYSIS
REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1, 3-5, 10-12, AND 14-16 UNDER 35 U.S.C. §102(B)
AS ANTICIPATED BY SCHULTZ
Appellants argue claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 14, and 16 as a first group. We
consider claim 1 as the representative claim from this group. Claim 1, directed to a
defense system for protecting a facility against aerial incursion, requires “a
multitude of vertical support masts, each mast extending from ground level to a
height at least substantially equal to the exposed portion of the facility, the masts
located along a perimeter at least partially surrounding the area of terrain that is
occupied by the facility,” and a plurality of cable groups “wherein the cables of
each cable group from a pattern that will disruptively intercept any substantially
horizontal flight path of an aircraft toward the exposed portion of the facility.”
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013