Appeal No. 2001-0534 Page 9
Application No. 09/271,626
teachings of the applied prior art to arrive at the subject
matter of claims 1 to 7 which includes a robotic fire
suppression vehicle. Moreover, even if the applied prior art
would have been suggestive of a robotic fire suppression
vehicle, there is no teaching or suggestion to have
maintained/deployed the robotic fire suppression vehicle at a
strategic location within the area surveyed by the robotic
survey vehicle as set forth in independent claims 1 and 3.
Since the subject matter of claims 1 to 7 is not
suggested by the applied prior art for the reasons set forth
above, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1 to 7
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
Claim 8
Claim 8 is drawn to a method for robotic fire protection
comprising, inter alia, the steps of (1) providing a control
and monitoring station; (2) providing a robotic survey vehicle
for surveying an area which it is desired to protect from fire
damage; (3) providing a robotic fire suppression vehicle for
administering fire suppressant to a fire upon command. In
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007