Appeal No. 1999-0615
Application No. 08/786,974
applied references for concluding that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the
backpack apparatus of Good so as to include an entire fire
suppressant foam generating system miniaturized and
consolidated to fit a backpack like that seen in Good.
As for the examiner's reliance on the comment in Stults
column 1, lines 15-18, relating to a prior art "portable"
high-expansion foam fire fighting system, we note that the
term "portable" as used in Stults most likely indicates that
the system is truck mounted and thus is portable in the sense
that the truck can be moved to the location of a fire when
needed. There is clearly nothing in the Stults patent or any
other reference of record in this application to suggest that
a high-expansion fire suppressant foam generating system sized
and consolidated to fit on a backpack was suggested or known
in the prior art before appellant's invention thereof. In
this regard, we also point to the patent to Teske relied upon
by the examiner in the § 103 rejection of claims 6 through 9
and 15 on appeal, noting that the Teske patent discloses a
fire suppressant foam generating system that is "portable"
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007