Ex parte Reams et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 17, 1998

08520976 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 17, 1998)

THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
(1) was not written for publication in a law journal and
(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 14
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte WILLIAM H. REAMS, DOUGLAS M. HINELY,
BRIAN L. WILL, LOUIS J. MONTESI,
and GERALD R. LAIB
_______________
Appeal No. 97-3107
Application 08/520,9761
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before THOMAS, HAIRSTON, and KRASS, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRASS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of
claim 1. Claim 12 has been indicated by the examiner as being
allowable and is no longer before us on appeal. Claims 2 through
11 have also been allowed by the examiner.
The invention pertains to a safety arming system for an
explosive device and, specifically to the arming of mines
deployed into water from aircraft. The system employs a

1 Application for patent filed August 24, 1995.
Appeal No. 97-3107
Application No. 08/520,976
2
hydrodynamic piston to detect a high velocity of the delivery
envelope, in which the arming device is installed, while the
delivery envelope is traveling through the water. The detection
of high velocity travel through the water is used to unlock a
detonation explosive train which then, after an appropriate
delay, removes electrical shorting of detonation, connecting the
electrical firing circuit connection and completing the
detonation path in order to “arm” the device in order to await a
firing signal from a target detection device. By detecting water
impact and high velocity, through water, of the delivery
envelope, underwater explosive weapon deployment by aircraft
delivery is improved such that arming in response to dry land
impact is avoided and reduction in altitude and a decrease in
flight speed from conventional limits is said to be achieved.
Claim 1 is reproduced as follows:
1. A safety arming system adapted to be installed within a
delivery envelope together with an explosive device detonated in
response to a firing signal from a target detector, said system
comprising: means responsive to deployment of said delivery
envelope for establishment of an armed condition therein;
explosive path means operatively connected to the target detector
for conducting said firing signal only in said armed condition to
the explosive device; and environmental means responsive to
detection of a high velocity of the delivery envelop [sic,
envelope] during water travel for maintenance of a safe condition
during which said establishment of the armed condition is
prevented.
The examiner relies on the following reference:
Reams 5,005,482 Apr. 9, 1991
Appeal No. 97-3107
Application No. 08/520,976
3
Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. ' 102(b) as
anticipated by Reams.
Reference is made to the briefs and answer for the
respective positions of appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
We reverse.
At issue here is whether or not Reams discloses the claimed
“environmental means responsive to detection of a high velocity
of the delivery envelop during water travel…”
Clearly, the disclosures of Reams and the instant
application relate to different inventions, the former employing
a hydrostatic sensor for detecting when the mine, descending
vertically through the water, has settled into the water to a
predetermined depth for exploding the mine when a target is
detected and the latter directed to hydrodynamically sensing high
velocity of the delivery envelope through the water along paths
other than a vertical descent path before exploding the mine when
a target is detected.
The question to be answered is whether the instant
invention, as claimed, distinguishes over Reams. The examiner
presents a compelling case as to the broad scope of the claim by
suggesting that the pressure acting against the piston in Reams
is inherently proportional to the velocity of the delivery
Appeal No. 97-3107
Application No. 08/520,976
4
envelope during water travel. The specific language of claim 1,
as written, certainly does not appear to require water travel
other than in a vertical direction.
Without more, we would be inclined to agree with the
examiner’s conclusion of anticipation. However, we view
appellants’ argument, at page 2 of the reply brief, that the
“environmental means” embodied in the system disclosed in the
Reams patent is not equivalent to the “environmental means” of
claim 1 on appeal as disclosed in the present application, to be
an argument under the sixth paragraph of 35 U.S.C. ' 112 as in In
re Donaldson, 16 F.3d 1189, 1193, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1848-49 (Fed.
Cir. 1994).
Accordingly, since the claim is in “means plus function”
format, we construe the “environmental means responsive to
detection of a high velocity of the delivery envelope during
water travel for maintenance of a safe condition…” to include
only those means actually disclosed in the instant application
and their equivalents under 35 U.S.C. ' 112, sixth paragraph.
Thus, even though not specifically mentioned in the claim
language, we construe this means, in accordance with 35 U.S.C.
' 112, sixth paragraph, to include the specific water impact
system 40 and hydrodynamic piston 80 described at pages 3 through
9 of the instant specification and equivalents thereof so that
the “generation of hydrodynamic pressure during travel of device
Appeal No. 97-3107
Application No. 08/520,976
5
10 through water at a predetermined high velocity”
[specification-page 7] is detected, thus excluding parachute
drops and such, as disclosed by Reams, wherein the deployment
envelope sinks, relatively slowly, and vertically, in the water.
The examiner’s decision rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
' 102(b) is reversed.
REVERSED
James D. Thomas )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
Kenneth W. Hairston ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
Errol A. Krass )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 97-3107
Application No. 08/520,976
6
Office of Counsel, Code 004
Naval Surface Warfare Center
Carderock Division
9500 MacArthur Boulevard
West Bethesda, MD 20817-5700
Appeal No. 97-3107
Application No. 08/520,976
7