Appeal No. 2001-0534 Page 8
Application No. 09/271,626
for this determination of the examiner. In our view, Foote,
at best, discloses a survey vehicle which (1) patrols an area;
(2) surveys that area to detect a forest fire; (3) provides
video and IR status information to a control and monitoring
station about the fire status of the area; and (4) is remotely
controlled from the control and monitoring station. Thus,
Foote does not disclose or suggest a robotic fire suppression
vehicle.
Primiani does not disclose or suggest a robotic fire
suppression vehicle. In fact, Primiani teaches the use of
aircraft as a fire suppression vehicle which in our view
suggests a manned fire suppression vehicle, not a robotic fire
suppression vehicle. Dellinger does not disclose or suggest a
robotic fire suppression vehicle.
Since none of the applied prior art teaches or suggests a
robotic fire suppression vehicle, it is our determination that
it would not have been obvious at the time the invention was
made to a person of ordinary skill in the art from the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007