Appeal No. 97-1229
Application 08/280,950
result of this review, we have reached the conclusion that the
cited prior art does not establish a prima facie case of
obviousness with respect to the claims on appeal. Therefore the
rejection of these claims is reversed.
It is our findings that Metcalf and Kern both provide
electronic means for detecting a fire in an aircraft. Metcalf is
disclosed as being installed under the engine cowling or inside a
jet nacelle. Kern is disclosed as being installed in a wing fuel
tank of a military aircraft. Neither of these references provide
a teaching first of a visual means, and second of a purely
optical means for fire detection.
The patents to Miller and Bauerlein are not directed to
fire detection. Miller shows a purely optical means of
establishing whether the lights are on in a room without opening
the door. Bauerlein is an optical means which indicates the
level of syrup in a soda fountain. While both of these patents
are directed to purely optical indicating means, neither is
related to fire detection and neither would have taught placing
the fire detection apparatus in an airplane engine cowling.
Given the findings of fact above, it is our conclusion
that the examiner's combination of references does not establish
a prima facie case of obviousness. We have so concluded, not
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007