Appeal No. 97-1229
Application 08/280,950
The appellant states in his brief that claims 2-9 do
not stand or fall together and has provided arguments for the
independent patentability of these claims.
The examiner rejected claims 2-9 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Metcalf and Kern in view of Miller and
Bauerlein. The examiner states the rejection thusly:
"Metcalf and Kern et al both show that
it is well known to provide optical
means on engines to detect fires.
Metcalf shows that such sensors are
located all around the engine including
the top of the cowling. Metcalf and
Kern et al are both using electronic
sensors which is the automatic
equivalent of purely visual system.
Kern et al uses fiber optic cables to
transmit the light of the fire to a
remote location for sensing. Miller and
Bauerlein show visual systems whereby
magnifier lenses and reflecting surfaces
are used so that a remote person can
detect light on the opposite side of [a]
solid surface. It would have been
obvious to one having ordinary skill in
the art at the time the invention was
made to replace the electronic detection
of Metcalf or Kern et al with purely
visual optical means such as shown be
[sic, by] Miller and Bauerleing since
this would be a simpler system with less
hardware requirements." (Examiner's
Answer, Page 3).
OPINION
We have carefully review the rejection on appeal in
light of the arguments of the examiner and the appellant. As a
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007