Appeal No. 1999-1767
Application No. 08/706,910
plate (12) of Apple referred to by the examiner is clearly not
“adapted to accommodate the trunk of the tree” as that
terminology must be understood in light of appellant’s
specification. The only thing that the opening in Apple is
adapted to accommodate during use of the tree stand therein is
the stud (24), which stud is pressed and threaded into
the bottom of the tree trunk when the tree stand is used to
hold a tree.
Since Apple lacks one of the claimed structural features
required in appellant’s claim 4 on appeal, it follows that the
examiner’s rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based
on Apple will not be sustained.
Regarding the examiner’s rejection of claims 5 and 6
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Apple,
even if we were to agree with the examiner that it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace
the adjustable leg section securing means of Apple with a
known securing means of the type defined in claims 5 and 6 on
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007