Appeal Number: 2006-2098
Application Number: 10/315,817
BACKGROUND
The appellant's invention relates to a planting bed. An understanding of the invention can be
derived from a reading of exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below.
1. A mobile, raised-planting bed comprising a base portion comprising
supporting wheels, a shell portion, and a shell insert, said shell insert adapted to
contain growing plants and comprising sides and an enclosing bottom, said sides
sized and disposed to conform generally in size and disposition to the inner sides
of said shell portion, and said enclosing bottom having a plurality of drainage
holes distributed in the bottom thereof, said shell portion adapted to receive said
shell insert and to receive water draining therefrom, and to hold it therein, and
said shell portion also having a controlled water drainage system permitting said
shell portion to be drained at the will of the user.
PRIOR ART
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the appealed
claims are:
Harman 5,448,853 September 12, 1995
Hansberry, Jr. (Hansberry) 4,373,761 February 15, 1983
Mekler (UK) GB 2137464 A October 10, 1984
REJECTIONS
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the appellants
regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's answer (mailed
January 9, 2006) for the reasoning in support of the rejection, and to appellants’ brief (filed April
28, 2005) for the arguments thereagainst.
Claims 1 and 2 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Mekler in view of
Harman.
Claims 3 to 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Mekler in view of
Harman and further in view of Hansberry, Jr.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007