Appeal 2007-0814
Application 10/243,417
(Finding of Fact 14). As such, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim
7 under 35 U.S.C. §102(b).
REJECTION OF CLAIMS 2 AND 13 UNDER 35 U.S.C. §103(A)
AS UNPATENTABLE OVER SCHULTZ
Appellants separately argue claim 2. Claim 2, which depends from
representative claim 1, further requires that the cables of each group are spaced
between 15 and 150 feet apart. Although we agree that the specified range for
spacing between the cables appears to be nothing more than an optimizing result
for an intended use, i.e., to stop a particular class of aircraft, the Examiner has not
established a prima facie case of obviousness with regard to Schultz’s failure to
disclose each of the claimed elements discussed supra. Accordingly, we do not
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) in view of
Schultz.
Appellants separately argue claim 13. Claim 13, which depends from claim
1, further requires a plurality of ground-level cables forming a grid more densely
spaced than the remainder of cables within a cable group, wherein the grid may be
selectively raised or lowered to intercept ground-based vehicles. The cabling of
Schultz is permanently and securely anchored in concrete anchors (Finding of Fact
13). Thus, we disagree with the Examiner’s finding that the cabling of Schultz
may be selectively raised or lowered. Furthermore, the Examiner has not
established a prima facie case of obviousness with regard to Schultz’s failure to
15
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013