Appeal No. 2001-0386 Page 8
Application No. 08/614,358
the time the invention was made to a person of ordinary skill
in the art to shape the outer perimeter of Delany's saucer as
a square or polygonal, and that such a modification would
result in a device capable of abutting against other like
devices in a continuous or contiguous manner. However, the
claims under appeal require more than such capability. As set
forth above, the claims under appeal require a system wherein
the devices (i.e., the water collection means of each
container) abut to form a continuous water capture surface
such that all overhead water is captured and directed into the
plant containers such that no water falls between adjacent
plant containers. However, none of the applied prior art
teaches or suggests these limitations. Thus, the examiner's
rejections have not been supported by evidence that would have
led an artisan to arrive at the claimed invention.
In our view, the only suggestion for modifying Delany to
arrive at the claimed invention stems from hindsight knowledge
derived from the appellants' own disclosure and not the
applied prior art. The use of such hindsight knowledge to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007