Ex Parte Searle et al - Page 1



            The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written                           
                   for publication and isnot binding precedent of the Board.                             
                       UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                                      
                                     ____________                                                     
                                                                                                     
                          BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                                          
                                   AND INTERFERENCES                                                  
                                     ____________                                                     
                     Ex parte RANCE W. SEARLE and MARTY G. HANSON                                     
                                     ____________                                                     
                                 Appeal No. 2006-1428                                                 
                              Application No. 10/669,157                                              
                               Technology Center [3600]                                               
                                     ____________                                                     
                                       ON BRIEF                                                       
                                     ____________                                                     
          Before BAHR, LEVY, and FETTING, Administrative Patent Judges.                               
          LEVY, Administrative Patent Judge.                                                          

                                 DECISION ON APPEAL                                                   
               This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's final                                 
          rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-10 and 13-24, which are all of                            
          the claims pending in this application.                                                     

          We REVERSE.                                                                                 
                                     BACKGROUND                                                       
               The appellants' invention relates to container gardening                               
          and a planter (specification, page 1).                                                      
               Claim 1 is representative of the invention, and is                                     
          reproduced as follows:                                                                      












Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007