Appeal No. 2003-0771
Application No. 09/031,666
for these differences, the examiner takes the position that it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art “to
incorporate the capacity of the pump, nozzle and hose
(interpreted as supply lines) as disclosed by Williams to the
device of Krynytzky et al. to combat large fires” (answer, page
4), and that it also would have been obvious “to incorporate the
third boom section, the third actuator assembly, and the third
pipe section of Ronan et al. to the device of Krynytzky et al. to
better articulate the nozzle” (answer, page 5), and that it
further would have been obvious “to mount a tank and pump on the
chassis of Krynytzky et al. as taught by Thorton-Trump to
eliminate the need for a separate pumper, therefore, enabling
independent operation of the fire fighting system of Krynytzky et
al.” (answer, page 5). In addition, the examiner considers
(answer, page 4) that operation of the above modified device of
Krynytzky would inherently result in turbulent flow of the
quenching agent.
quenching agent volumetric flow rate of about 5,000 gallons per
minute through the conveying pipeline,” and independent claim
17 calls for the step of operating the pump to pump the quenching
agent to the nozzle “at a pump discharge pressure of 150 pounds
per square inch and through the conveying pipeline at a turbulent
flow rate of at least about 3,000 gallons per minute.”
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007