Appeal 2007-0814
Application 10/243,417
Furthermore, claim 1 requires that the facility to be protected (1) extends above
ground level, (2) occupies an area of terrain, and (3) has at least some portion
exposed to a substantially horizontal flight path of an aircraft. Appellants argue
that Schultz does not anticipate claim 1 because Schultz fails to teach (1) each mast
extends from ground level to a height at least substantially equal to an exposed
portion of the facility, (2) the masts are located along a perimeter at least partially
surrounding the area of terrain occupied by the facility, and (3) the cables of each
cable group form a pattern that will intercept any substantially horizontal flight
path of an aircraft toward the exposed portion of the facility (Appeal Br. 3-6). In
response, the Examiner asserts that the structural limitations of claim 1 require a
defense system comprising (1) vertical support masts that have vertical height, and
(2) a plurality of cable groups, each group having cables coupled to and coplanar
with an adjacent pair of support masts, where (3) the cables of each group form a
pattern, all of which are met by Schultz (Answer 7). We disagree.
Although the Examiner is correct that a specific facility and airplane are not
claimed, we disagree with the Examiner’s assertion that the claimed references to
the facility and flight path are merely intended use and do not provide any
structural limitation. The preamble sets forth the minimum requirements for the
facility and the body of the claim clearly references these minimum structural
requirements in defining the structure of the defense system (i.e., height and
position). Therefore, we find that the reference to the structural requirements of
the facility and flight path provide, albeit broadly, structural limitations to the
claimed defense system. Accordingly, we interpret the structural limitations, under
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013