Appeal 2007-0814
Application 10/243,417
OTHER ISSUES
Attached to this decision we provide an article entitled ”Barrage Balloons
For Low-Level Air Defense” Maj. Franklin J. Hillson USAF, Airpower Journal,
summer 1989, http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj89/
hillson.html. The Examiner should consider whether the article’s discussion of
barrage balloons anticipates or renders obvious the invention as claimed.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3-5, 10-12, and 14-16 as anticipated
by Schultz is reversed, rejection of claims 1, 5, 6, 10, and 16 as anticipated by
Crisp is sustained, rejection of claim 7 as anticipated by Crisp is reversed, rejection
of claims 2 and 13 as unpatentable over Schultz is reversed, rejection of claim 6 as
unpatentable over Schultz in view of Crisp is sustained, rejection of claim 8 as
unpatentable over Crisp is reversed, and rejection of claim 9 as unpatentable over
Crisp is sustained.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2006).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
vsh
18
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013