Appeal No. 2001-0534 Page 10
Application No. 09/271,626
addition, claim 8 includes the steps of (1) upon detection of
a fire requesting clearance to administer the fire suppressant
from a cognizant security agency; and (2) making periodic
reports to the cognizant security agency and a Forestry
Service.
Since none of the applied prior art teaches or suggests a
robotic fire suppression vehicle for the reasons set forth
above in our discussion of claims 1 to 7, 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 teachings of the applied prior art to arrive at
the subject matter of claim 8 which includes a robotic fire
suppression vehicle. Moreover, it is our opinion that even if
the applied prior art would have been suggestive of a robotic
fire suppression vehicle, there is no teaching of the steps of
(1) upon detection of a fire requesting clearance to
administer the fire suppressant from a cognizant security
agency; and (2) making periodic reports to the cognizant
security agency and a Forestry Service as set forth in claim
8. In our view, the examiner's finding (answer, p. 7) that
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007