Appeal 2007-0814
Application 10/243,417
path of an aircraft.” As such, claim 1 does not require the masts to extend to the
height of the entire facility. Accordingly, the fence of Crisp satisfies the claimed
height because the fence extends as high as some portion of the facility which it
surrounds (i.e., a four foot height perimeter of the building). Appellants further
assert that Crisp fails to disclose a fence capable of protecting “against horizontal
flight impacts” (Br. 8). However, claim 1 requires only that the cables
“disruptively intercept any substantially horizontal flight path of an aircraft toward
the exposed portion of the facility.” As discussed, supra, the exposed portion of
the building does not have to include the entire facility but some portion thereof.
As a result the exposed portion as claimed includes an area of the facility which is
one to four feet above ground level. The fence of Crisp satisfies the claimed
interception as the fence would disrupt the flight path of an aircraft if aimed at a
portion of the embassy which it surrounds (Finding of Fact 7-10). As such, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 5, 6, 10, and 16 under 35 U.S.C.
§102(b).
Appellants argue claim 7 as a separate group. Claim 7, which depends from
independent claim 1, further requires at least one partially buried concrete anchor
disposed between an adjacent pair of the support masts and wherein a plurality of
the cables of a cable group are fastened both to the concrete anchor and to at least
one of the adjacent pair of masts. Crisp discloses concrete anchors for vertically
securing the line posts. However, the cables are not fastened to both the concrete
anchor and at least one adjacent mast or post (Finding of Fact 13). We disagree
with the Examiner’s finding that Crisp discloses cables fastened to the masts
14
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013