Appeal Number: 2006-2098
Application Number: 10/315,817
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to appellants’
specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the respective positions
articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations that follow.
Claims 1 and 2 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Mekler in view of
Harman.
We note that the appellants argue these claims as a group. Accordingly, we select claim 1 as
representative of the group as per 37 § 41.37(c)(vii).
As to claim 1, the examiner has applied Mekler to all of the claim elements except for
wheels and grow light receptacles. [See Answer at p. 3]. We note that claim 1 has no grow
light receptacles called forth as elements.
Essentially, the examiner states that Mekler’s housing (Fig. 2 Ref. 50) is the claimed shell;
Mekler’s liquid drain surface (Fig. 2 Ref. 68) is the claimed shell insert; Meckler’s water inlets
and outlets (Fig. 7 Ref. 75 and 81) are the claimed drainage holes; and Mekler’s drainage unit
and liquid connection (Fig. 2 Ref. 70 and 72) are the claimed controlled water drainage system.
The examiner has applied Harman for both wheels and grow light receptacles, and states that
the motivation to apply these aspects to Mekler is the promotion of plant growth and of mobility
of apparatus. The appellants argue that Mekler has no wheels and there would be no reason to
place the wheels of Harman on Mekler’s frame. The appellants go on to argue that neither
Harman nor Mekler indicate a use of their planting beds for indoor gardeners and therefore
neither of them alone or in combination would have suggested the claimed invention. [See Brief
at p. 6]. The examiner responds that, as to wheels, Mekler makes no teaching that would
preclude such adaptation, and as to the use, the examiner responds that this is a mere statement
of intended use and not part of the claimed subject matter. [See Answer at p. 6-7].
As to the motivation to apply Harman’s wheels to Mekler, we note that Harman provides the
rationale for wheels on planting beds where it is needed to provide readily adjustable light
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007