Appeal No. 2006-1428 Παγε 8
Application No. 10/669,157
the container do attach to the top of a lower placed container.
However, these support members 11-13, or the similar support
members on the top of the container, are not part of the flange
disposed on the sidewall. Thus, even if the teachings of the
references were combined as advanced by the examiner, the
resultant structure would not meet the language of claim 1.
Thus, we agree with appellant (reply brief, page 2) that
“[i]t is not clear what the combination of Khoury and Rolfe leads
to, but it is not the presently claimed planter."
From all of the above, we find that the combined teachings
of Khoury and Rolfe would not have suggested to an artisan all
of the limitations of claim 1. Accordingly, the rejection of
claim 1, and claims 2, 4, 5, 7-10 and 13-15, dependent therefrom,
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
The other independent claims 16 and 23 contain a similar
limitation. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 16 and 23,
along with dependent claims 17-22 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
is reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007