Appeal 2007-0814
Application 10/243,417
their broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the Specification to require (1) a
multitude of vertical support masts which extend above ground at some height
equivalent to some exposed portion of a facility and are positioned such that they
partially surround the area occupied by the exposed portion of the facility, and (2)
a plurality of cable groups including a multitude of cables coupled to and coplanar
with a pair of adjacent masts, where the cables form a pattern which would disrupt
the horizontal flight path of an aircraft towards the exposed portion of the facility.
Schultz discloses a safety barrier or net for vehicles and/or falling objects
that includes at least two posts and a plurality of cables. The posts of the barrier
extend above ground a predetermined height, and the net forms a pattern designed
to intercept the path of an aircraft (Finding of Fact 2-6). However, the posts of
Schultz’s barrier are not positioned along a perimeter at least partially surrounding
an area occupied by a facility (Finding of Fact 5-6). To the contrary, Schultz’s
barrier is located so that it intercepts an object (i.e., an airplane, car, or person) to
protect the object from destruction not a facility. As such, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 or its dependent claims 3-5, 10-12, 14, and 15
under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) in view of Schultz.
Claim 16, also directed to a defense system for protecting a facility against
aerial incursion, requires vertical masts positioned such that the cables
therebetween substantially block the exposed portion of the facility. Schultz fails
to teach positioning the masts of the barrier such that the cables therebetween
would substantially block the exposed portion of a facility. As such, we do not
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013