Appeal 2007-0814
Application 10/243,417
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) in view of
Schultz.
REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1, 5-7, 10 AND 16 UNDER 35 U.S.C. §102(B) AS
ANTICIPATED BY CRISP
As discussed supra, Claim 1 requires (1) a multitude of vertical support
masts which extend above ground level at some height substantially equal to some
portion of a facility exposed to a substantially horizontal flight path of an aircraft
and are positioned such that they partially surround the area occupied by the
facility, and (2) a plurality of cable groups including a multitude of cables coupled
to and substantially 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.
Crisp discloses a high strength security fence for snaring vehicles (Finding
of Fact 7). The fence is positioned to enclose a specific area/facility to be
protected and extends approximately four feet above ground level (Finding of
Facts 10, 11). The fence includes cabling and support masts/posts of suitable
strength to withstand the impact of high speed vehicular intrusion attempts
(Finding of Facts 7, 9). Appellants argue that Crisp fails to disclose that “the fence
extends at least as high as the embassy building” (Br. 7). However, claim 1
requires only that the masts extend “to a height at least substantially equal to the
exposed portion of the facility,” where “the exposed portion” is defined in the
preamble to be “at least some portion exposed to a substantially horizontal flight
13
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013