Appeal 2007-0814
Application 10/243,417
disclose each of the claimed elements discussed supra. As such, we do not sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) in view of Schultz.
REJECTION OF CLAIM 6 UNDER 35 U.S.C. §103(A) AS UNPATENTABLE
OVER SCHULTZ IN VIEW OF CRISP
Claim 6, which depends from representative claim 1, further requires that the
defense system includes a plurality of partially buried concrete base structures,
wherein each of the support masts is embedded in a respective one of the base
structures. Crisp teaches a plurality of partially buried concrete base structures,
wherein each of the support masts is embedded in a respective one of the base
structures (Finding of Fact 11).
In view of the above discussion, since Crisp teaches all of the limitations of
claim 1 and a plurality of partially buried concrete base structures, as recited in
claim 6, Schultz is merely cumulative for rejecting claim 6.[1] Accordingly, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a).
REJECTION OF CLAIMS 8 AND 9 UNDER 35 U.S.C. §103(A) AS
UNPATENTABLE OVER CRISP
Appellants did not separately argue claim 9. Therefore, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 9 for substantially the same reasons as discussed
supra for claim 1.
[1] The Board may rely on less than all of the references applied by the Examiner in
an obviousness rationale without designating it as a new ground of rejection. In re
Bush, 296 F.2d 491, 496, 131 USPQ 263, 266-67 (CCPA 1961); In re Boyer, 363
F.2d 455, 458 n.2 150 USPQ 441, 444 n.2 (CCPA 1966).
16
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013