Ex Parte Skinner et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 11, 2012

11120295 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 11, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte ANTHONY T. SKINNER and MICHAEL L. FORTNER
____________________

Appeal 2010-003259
Application 11/120,295
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before: JENNIFER D. BAHR, WILLIAM V. SAINDON, and
MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, Administrative Patent Judges.

SAINDON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-003259
Application 11/120,295
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1-16. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The disclosed subject matter is generally directed to a container for
munitions, the container having reactive panels to protect the munitions and
having a venting device to vent the container upon activation of the reactive
panels to protect the munitions from high heat. See Spec. 2-4. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter.
1. An initiator operatively associated with a venting device, the
initiator comprising:
a detonation port; and
a reactive panel coupled with the detonation port, the
reactive panel, comprising:
an inner panel;
an outer panel; and
an explosive sheet disposed between the inner
panel and the outer panel and operatively associated with
the venting device.
The Examiner makes the following rejections:
I. Claims 1, 3-5, and 7-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Abernathy (US 3,960,085, iss. Jun. 1, 1976). Ans. 3.
II. Claims 2 and 6 are rejected under § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Abernathy. Ans. 5.

We REVERSE.

OPINION
Independent claims 1 and 5 require, in relevant part, a detonation port
coupled to a reactive panel. The Examiner found that Abernathy describes a
detonation port “at 10, 11, 13 or one of 14.” Ans. 3. Appellants argue that
Appeal 2010-003259
Application 11/120,295
3
the Examiner’s findings with respect to the detonation port are improper.
App. Br. 13-14. We review each of the Examiner’s findings in turn.
Abernathy describes item 10 as the warhead itself. Col. 2, ll. 33-35.
A warhead is clearly not a detonation port.
Item 11 in Abernathy is a kill mechanism. Col. 2, ll. 49-52. The kill
mechanism is the set of projectiles sent to kill the intended target (e.g., a
missile). Col. 3, ll. 1-8, 59-65. As such, the kill mechanism is not a
detonation port.
The axially aligned conduit 13 is likewise not a detonation port.
Instead, it is for providing an electrical connection between missile
components fore and aft of the warhead. Col. 3, ll. 37-42.
The Examiner’s last finding with respect to a detonation port is item
14, the hinges. The hinges 14 are flat plates connecting the various warhead
segments. Col. 2, ll. 39-44. One set of hinges (furthest away from the
target) is cut via explosive charge 18 to allow the warhead to unwrap in a
way such that each kill mechanism 11 is facing the target. Col. 2, ll. 66-68
(describing hinge-breaking charge 18), col. 3, ll. 13-24 (describing the
unwrapping of the warhead); fig. 3 (depicting the warhead starting to
deploy), fig. 4 (depicting the deployed warhead and kill mechanism 11
path). Thus, a first set of hinges merely bends, while a second set of hinges
is cut after an explosion. The Examiner has not provided any explanation as
to how either set constitutes a “detonation port.” Neither set of hinges
appears to be involved in the detonation of an explosive. The cut hinges are
cut by an explosion but it is not clear to us (nor has the Examiner proffered
an explanation) how an object struck by an explosion could be considered a
detonation port.
Appeal 2010-003259
Application 11/120,295
4
As set forth above, it is not clear to us how items 10, 11, 13, or 14
satisfy the “detonation port” limitation of claims 1 and 5. The Examiner has
not offered any cogent explanation as to why these items satisfy the
limitation. Consequently, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner has
not set forth a prima facie case of anticipation with respect to claims 1, 3-5,
and 7-16.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 2 and 6 as obvious in view of
Abernathy fails to cure the underlying deficiency with respect to the
detonation port limitation. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 2 and 6.

DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision regarding claims 1-16.

REVERSED

hh