Appeal No. 95-3424
Application 08/143,598
Schatz also teaches activation of flood means in response to a signal from the HF detectors and,
appellants' arguments to the contrary notwithstanding, the instant claims include no requirement that the
flooding/spraying occur within the confines of the containment baffles. Accordingly, the instant claims
are not patentably distinguishable from the combined teachings of Partridge and Schatz.
With regard to the separate rejections of claim 5, we note that Schatz (col. 5, line 27) suggests
use of a secondary temperature detector and appellants admit on page 8 of their brief that it would have
been obvious to use a thermocouple as a temperature detector. Accordingly, there is no dispute with
regard to the obviousness of the feature recited in claim 5, and no need to consider the prior art
references (Bajek, Hachmuth) cited by the examiner to show this feature.
For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the examiner is affirmed based upon the provisions of
35 U.S.C. § 103.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may
be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
MARC L. CAROFF )
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007